URRABAZO v. STATE (2024)

[¶1] Jaime Urrabazo appeals from an order denying his application for postconviction relief after pleading guilty to unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, second offense. At the evidentiary hearing on his application, he alleged he was under the influence of drugs when he pled guilty and claims he did not make a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to trial. The court found Urrabazo's testimony was not credible and he failed to establish withdrawal of his guilty plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice.

[¶2] “The [district] court has discretion in finding whether a manifest injustice necessitating the withdrawal of a guilty plea exists, and we review the court's decision for abuse of discretion.” State v. Rangel, 2024 ND 96, ¶ 6, 6 N.W.3d 860 (citation omitted). Findings of fact made in a postconviction relief proceeding are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. Urrabazo v. State, 2024 ND 67, ¶ 6, 5 N.W.3d 521. After a review of the record, we conclude the district court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous, and the court did not abuse its discretion by not allowing Urrabazo to withdraw his guilty plea. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Per Curiam.

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr