2020-0506, State of New Hampshire v. Robert A. Graham, Jr.

consider the merits of the defendant ’ s motion, we vacate and remand. denial. Because we conclude that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hearing; and (3) make written findings of fac ts and rulings of law to support its (1) hold a hearing; (2) indicate that it had reviewed the record of the plea process under the State and Federal Constitutions as the circuit court did not: should be reversed and his conviction vacated because he was denied due guilty plea and to vacate his conviction. The defendant argues that the order from an order of the Circuit Court (Hall, J.) denying his motion to withdraw his HANTZ MARCONI, J. The defendant, Robert A. Graham, Jr., appeals

defendant. Wiberg Law Office, of Portsmouth, (Sven D. Wiberg on the brief), for the

general, on the brief), for the State. John M. Formella, attorney general (Weston R. Sager, assistant attorney

No. 2020 - 0506 10th Circuit Court - Brentwood District Division

page is: https://www.courts.nh.gov/our - courts/supreme - court a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court’s home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 to press. Errors may be reported by email at the following address: editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concor d, New Hampshire 03301, of any Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule p. 2 22 as 2

See id. at 469 - 70. Jaskolka entered into a negotiated plea agreement, by which denying a defen dant’s motion to vacate his conviction and grant a new trial. This case is similar to Jaskolka, where we vacated a circuit court ’ s order

upon the circuit court ’ s jurisdiction. Jaskolka, 17 p. 2 2 N.H. at 471. in the circuit courts, see RSA 599:1 to :1 - a, which, in turn, impose limitations prescribed strict time limitations upon a defendant ’ s right to appeal convictions RSA 490 - F:18 (Supp. 2020). Consistent with this premise, the legislature has with powers conferred upon it by statute. See RSA 502 - A:11 (Supp. 2020); on appeal. See id. at 471. The circuit court is a court of limited jurisdiction subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the parties at any time, including Though the issue of jurisdiction was not raised before the circuit court,

consider his motion. We agree with the State. violation con viction, the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to defendant ’ s motion was filed beyond the thirty - day time period to appeal a Jaskolka, 17 p. 2 2 N.H. 468 (2019). The State contends that because the jurisdiction to address the merits of the defendant ’ s motion, citing State v. asserts, for the first time on appeal, that the circuit court lacked subject matter motion to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate his conviction. The State due process under the State and Federal Constitutions when it denied his On appeal, the defendant contends that the circuit court deprived him of

denied the defendant ’ s motion without holding a hearing. This appeal followed. conviction; he did not request a hearing. On September p. 2 29, the circuit court that the circu it court grant his motion to withdraw his plea and vacate his consequences under the habitual offender statute. The defendant requested mens rea requirement of the offense nor was he advised of the potential voluntary because he was not informed of the State ’ s burden of proving the his conviction, arguing that his plea was not knowin g, intelligent, and On September 2, 2020, the defendant, through counsel, moved to vacate

imposed a fine and penalty assessment of $310. violation for operating after a suspension of his license. The court then Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the defendant pled gu ilty to a affirmed that he had signed an acknowledgement and waiver of rights form. arraignment, plea, and sentencing hearing. At this hearing, the defendant On December 17, the Cir cuit Court (LeFrancois, J.) held a combined after suspension of the vehicle registration contrary to RSA p. 2 261:178 (2014). after a suspension of his license contrary to RSA 263:64 (2014) and operating On October 18, 2019, the defendant was arrested and charged with opera ting The following facts and procedural history are supported by the record.

HICKS, BASSETT, and DONOVAN, JJ., concurred.

court ’ s order and remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. not address the defendant ’ s remaining arguments. We vacate th e circuit Given our conclusion that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction, we need

motion. See id. circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the defendant ’ s the circuit court. Jaskolka, 172 N.H. at 47 p. 3 3. We, th erefore, conclude that the circumstances, is a writ of coram nobis, for which jurisdiction does not lie in procedural vehicle for a defendant seeking extraordinary relief, under these c, II; Jaskolka, 172 N.H. at 470 - 73. As we explained in Jaskolka, the proper day statutory period for direct appeal of a violation conviction. See RSA 599:1 seeks to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate his conviction beyond the thirty - Here, like the defendant in Jaskolka, the defendant is not in custody and

instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 47 p. 3 3 - 74. nobis. See id. Thus, we vacated the trial court ’ s order and remanded with consider the extraordinary relief requested by a petition for a writ of coram absence of any statutory authority the circuit court lacks jurisdiction to as seeking a writ of coram nobis. See id. We explained, however, that in the to correct an alleged violation of a constitutional right, we construed his motion his plea. See id. at 473. Because th e defendant was not in custody and sought corpus and coram nobis were the proper procedural vehicles to seek review of the time limits governing the circuit court ’ s jurisdiction, the writs of habeas defendant sought to withdraw a guilty plea and vacate his conviction outside the merits of the defendant ’ s motion. Id. We observed that, because the concluded that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to address untimeliness. See id. at 470. After review of the circuit court ’ s order, we The trial court denied his motion, noting, among other things, the motion ’ s conviction, based on an alleged involuntary guilty plea. See id. at 470, 472. his conviction, Jaskolka filed a motion in the circuit court seeking to vacate his he pled guilty to a misdemeanor, in 1991. See id. at 47 0. Nearly 27 years after