Kremer v. State

Citations

• 945 N.W.2d 279
• 2020 ND 132

Syllabus

To establish prejudice under Strickland in a plea bargain situation, the petitioner must allege facts that, if proven, would support a conclusion that rejection of the plea bargain would have been rational because valid defenses existed, a suppression motion could have undermined the prosecution's case, or there was a realistic potential for a lower sentence. A defendant's subjective, self-serving statement that, with competent advice, he would have insisted on going to trial is insufficient to establish prejudice under Strickland in a plea bargain situation. The provisions of N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 are mandatory, and substantial compliance is required to ensure a defendant knowingly and voluntarily enters a guilty plea. Although N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 does not require ritualistic compliance, a court must substantially comply with the rule's procedural requirements to ensure a defendant is entering a voluntary and intelligent guilty plea.