WARNER v. STATE (2026)

[¶1] Daniel Warner appeals from a judgment denying his postconviction relief application entered after an evidentiary hearing. Warner argues the district court erred in determining that he voluntarily pled guilty in the underlying criminal case and that he failed to establish withdrawal of his guilty plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice. He contends his plea was entered under the duress of an urgent need to treat an existing hand injury and the promise of getting released from custody.

[¶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 (cleaned up). 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 reviewing 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 Warner to withdraw his guilty plea. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Per Curiam.

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