STATE v. TULLY (2022)

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. David Eugene TULLY, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20220214

Decided: December 08, 2022

Jayme J. Tenneson, State's Attorney, Lakota, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee. Benjamin C. Pulkrabek, Mandan, N.D., for defendant and appellant.

[¶1] David Tully appeals from a criminal judgment entered after he pled guilty to terrorizing in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-04. On appeal, Tully argues that his case should be remanded to the district court to withdraw his guilty plea because the court failed to substantially comply with N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1)(A)-(E) and (3). He did not raise these issues at the district court. We do not address issues raised for the first time on appeal unless they rise to the level of obvious error affecting substantial rights under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b). State v. Hoehn, 2019 ND 222, ¶ 20, 932 N.W.2d 553; State v. Cox, 2017 ND 23, ¶¶ 8, 10, 889 N.W.2d 848. This Court finds no obvious error, and we therefore summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) & (7).

Per Curiam.

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network