Parshall v. North Dakota

March 8, 2018 by Justia

Russell Parshall appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 2015 Parshall pled guilty to "Driving Under the Influence N.D.C.C. 39-08-01 (First Offense Refusal)" by a N.D.R.Crim.P. 43 plea agreement. Parshall's Rule 43 Change of Plea and Sentencing Appearance Waiver listed the charge without the parenthetical "(First Offense Refusal);" however, both the formal plea agreement section of the document and the later criminal judgment included the parenthetical. Parshall applied for post-conviction relief, arguing the United States Supreme Court's holding in Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016), was a retroactively applicable substantive rule of constitutional law that prohibited the State from imposing criminal liability for refusing a warrantless blood test. In opposing Parshall's application the State argued the factual basis in the plea agreement supported both general driving while impaired and refusal to submit to the blood test. The district court found Parshall entered a guilty plea to the general charge of driving under the influence, not merely refusal. The district court declined to rule on the retroactivity of Birchfield, "The Court need not make that ruling, as the Court finds that the ruling in Birchfield made the statute regarding conviction by refusal to provide a blood sample unconstitutional from the moment of passage." The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding the parties' intent could be ascertained from the plea agreement itself. The plea agreement signed by Parshall stated "Defendant hereby pleads guilty to a charge of COUNT I DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE N.D.C.C. 39-08-01 (First Offense Refusal) a Class B Misdemeanor." The criminal judgment mirrored this language. From this the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in interpreting the factual basis following the plea agreement to determine Parshall pled guilty to general driving under the influence when the plain language indicated refusal. With respect to Birchfield, because the district court did not rule on that issue, the matter was remanded for resolution. View "Parshall v. North Dakota" on Justia Law