Background
In March 2026, North Dakota charged Dallas William Rice with two class A felonies: conspiracy to commit theft of property exceeding $50,000 and theft of property exceeding $50,000. The district court set an unsecured appearance bond and release conditions. On March 20, the acting presiding judge asked the Supreme Court to reassign the case outside the North Central Judicial District so it would “track with” a codefendant’s case and avoid an appearance of impropriety or bias. The Court denied that request on April 1.
After the parties announced an agreement on July 28, a change-of-plea hearing occurred on September 28. Rice pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit theft, agreed with the State’s factual basis, and was found capable of knowingly and intelligently pleading with retained counsel’s advice. The court found an adequate factual basis to accept the plea, and the parties declined a presentence investigation. The proposed agreement was neither filed nor stated on the record. After reviewing it, the court rejected the proposed disposition.
The court then made conflicting statements about sentencing and trial. It announced that Rice had pleaded guilty to an A felony, exonerated his bond, and ordered him into custody to await sentencing, but later said the case would be set for trial and scheduled an October 16 status conference. Although the court eventually said Rice could withdraw his plea, it maintained the bond exoneration pending any motion. Its order required Rice to report to jail immediately until further order. Rice petitioned for a supervisory writ on October 2, seeking bond reinstatement, release, and out-of-district reassignment. The State took no position, and Judge Lee did not respond. On October 14, the Supreme Court granted relief in part and promised this explanatory opinion.
The Court’s Holding
The Court explained that supervisory jurisdiction is discretionary, exercised rarely and cautiously to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary cases lacking an adequate alternative remedy. Although the hearing record referred imprecisely to a “Rule 11” agreement, Rice’s petition described a binding agreement under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)(C), and neither respondent disputed that description. The Court therefore analyzed it as binding.
It identified two independent plea-related defects. First, despite findings supporting acceptance, the district court never formally accepted Rice’s guilty plea. Second, rejection of the binding agreement did not substantially comply with Rule 11(c)(5). The court read Rule 11(c)(3)(B), which concerns nonbinding recommendations and says a defendant has no right to withdraw when the court does not follow them. It did not personally advise Rice, as Rule 11(c)(5)(B) requires, that the court need not follow the agreement and give him an opportunity to withdraw. It also omitted Rule 11(c)(5)(C)’s personal warning that retaining the plea could produce a disposition less favorable than the agreement contemplated. The Court consequently could not conclude that the plea was knowing and voluntary.
An unaccepted plea, or one not knowingly and voluntarily made, cannot constitute a conviction supporting sentence and judgment; Rule 32 therefore did not authorize detention in these circumstances. Rule 46(g) governs exoneration but did not authorize revoking release and holding Rice without bond here. The Court held that exonerating the bond and ordering detention without bail was error. It reaffirmed its direction to determine release conditions promptly under N.D. Const. art. I, § 11 and Rule 46, including Rule 46(a)(1)’s release-pending-trial framework. It did not order unconditional release or automatically reinstate the former bond.
The Court denied supervisory reassignment. Erroneous or adverse rulings alone do not establish bias, and Rice did not adequately explain how the legal error on an unclear record demonstrated disqualifying partiality or an appearance of impropriety. He also had not filed a timely disqualification motion in the district court, which generally decides that issue first. Because adequate alternative remedies existed, the Court declined to reassign the case.
Key Takeaways
- Rejecting a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement requires the personal advice and withdrawal opportunity specified by Rule 11(c)(5).
- A plea that was not accepted, or was not knowing and voluntary, cannot support conviction-based sentencing or judgment.
- The district court must promptly reassess Rice’s release conditions; the opinion does not itself restore his former bond.
- Reassignment was denied because legal error alone did not establish bias and disqualification remedies remained available below.
Why It Matters
The decision separates the procedural validity of a guilty plea from the authority to detain a defendant after rejecting a binding plea agreement. It requires substantial compliance with Rule 11(c)(5) while recognizing that no ritualistic wording is required.
It also confines the reassignment ruling to this record: supervisory intervention was inappropriate where Rice had not first pursued timely disqualification in the district court and had not connected the erroneous rulings to actual partiality or an appearance of impropriety.