Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Paul Dean Oie, Defendant and Appellant.

Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

[¶ 1] Paul Dean Oie appeals from a criminal judgment and commitment sentencing him to fifteen-years imprisonment, five years suspended, for two counts of Gross Sexual Imposition under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-03(2)(a). Oie entered Alford guilty pleas,North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), on each count but argues that a factual basis was not established for Count Two. The record reflects the district court made an open court inquiry into the factual basis and additionally supplemented such basis with information contained in the pre-sentence investigation report. A factual basis is to be established to the district court's satisfaction, Kaiser v. State, 417 N.W.2d 175, 178 (N.D. 1987), and may be provided by a pre-sentence investigation report. Froistad v. State, 2002 ND 52, ¶ 23, 641 N.W.2d 86. The standard of review for withdrawing a guilty plea after sentencing is "abuse of discretion." State v. Mortrud, 312 N.W.2d 354, 359 (N.D. 1981).

[¶ 2] Concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in accepting the guilty plea and a controlling decision by this Court is dispositive, we summarily affirm the criminal judgment and commitment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).

[¶ 3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Dale V. Sandstrom

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

STATE v. OIE
(Sep 27, 2005)