 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Berger3/18/1999
quire Berger to be so advised.
[ ] This court has discussed the purpose of Rule 11. Houle v. State, 482 N.W.2d 24, 29 (N.D. 1992). Houle argued the trial court violated Rule 11 by failing to inform him a period of parole ineligibility was a consequence of his plea. Id. In Houle, at 30, we explained "before a plea can intelligently and voluntarily be offered, the defendant must be informed of all 'direct consequences' of his plea, but need not be advised of 'collateral consequences.'" See also State v. Dalman, 520 N.W.2d 860, 863 (N.D. 1994).
[ ] Rule 11(b) requires the trial court to inform the defendant of the "mandatory minimum punishment, if any, and the maximum possible punishment provided by the statute defining the offense to which the plea is offered." See also Dalman, at 862-63. Under N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(4) the direct consequences of guilty plea for a first DUI or APC offense include "a fine of at least two hundred fifty dollars and an order for addiction evaluation. . . ." A second offender within five years must be sentenced to "at least four days' imprisonment of which forty-eight hours must be served consecutively, or ten days' community service[,] a fine of at least five hundred dollars," and an addiction evaluation. Id. However, if a defendant is convicted of APC a fine or sentence may be suspended under N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(4)(e)(1).
[ ] The possibility of future sentence enhancement because of subsequent offenses is not a direct and inevitable consequence of a guilty plea. N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(4); see also Presley v. State, 498 So.2d 832, 833 (Miss. 1986). A defendant does not need to be advised under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 of every potential fact that may become relevant in future criminal proceedings. Further, advising a defendant of future sentence enhancement possibilities presumes a defendant will become a repeat offender. Rule 11 does not mandate such pessimism.
IV.
[ ] Berger asserts his APC convictions cannot be used to enhance his DUI conviction. Berger argues this issue for the first time on appeal. It is well established issues not properly presented to the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Murchison v. State, 1998 ND 96, 15, 578 N.W.2d 514. We therefore decline to address the issue.
V.
[ ] We conclude the trial court's denial of the suppression motion is supported by competent evidence and is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Page 1 2 3 North Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|