Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Aldolfo CONTRERAS–CASTILLO a/k/a Adolfo Contreras–Castillo, Defendant and Appellant
[¶ 1] Adolfo Contreras–Castillo appealed an order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Contreras–Castillo argues the district court erred in its decision, claiming that during the change of plea hearing, the court did not advise him of immigration consequences before accepting his guilty plea.
[¶ 2] In March 2016, Contreras–Castillo was charged with murdering his brother. At his initial appearance, the district court advised him of his rights, including the immigration consequences of a guilty plea or a finding of guilt. Contreras–Castillo stated he understood his rights, the charges against him, and the maximum penalties. In August 2016, Contreras–Castillo pled guilty to the crime. At the change of plea hearing, the court questioned Contreras–Castillo about the earlier advisement on his rights, and Contreras–Castillo stated he understood those rights and waived a rereading of the rights. In June 2017, Contreras–Castillo moved to withdraw his guilty plea. After a hearing, the court denied his motion, concluding he was advised of consequences related to immigration.
[¶ 3] On review of the entire record, we conclude Contreras–Castillo was properly advised of his rights, including the immigration consequences of a conviction. Contreras–Castillo stated he understood those rights and waived a rereading of the rights at the change of plea hearing. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Contreras–Castillo’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7). See Peltier v. State, 2015 ND 35, ¶ 17, 859 N.W.2d 381 (At a change of plea hearing, a district court is not required to readvise a defendant of each of his rights under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b), if the court finds the defendant previously was properly advised of those rights and recalls the advice.).
Per Curiam.
[¶ 4] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Jerod E. Tufte Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jon J. Jensen
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20170362
Decided: June 05, 2018
Court: Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)