author: MARING, Justice.

text:
    2002 ND 49
    Jenese A. PETERS-RIEMERS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Roland C. RIEMERS, Defendant and Appellant.
    No. 20010274.
    Supreme Court of North Dakota.
    March 12, 2002.
    Rehearing Denied April 16, 2002.

      Roland C. Riemers (on brief), pro se, Grand Forks, defendant and appellant.
    Michael L. Gjesdahl (on brief), Gjesdahl & Associates, Fargo, for plaintiff and ap-pellee.
   MARING, Justice.

[¶ 1] Roland Riemers appeals from an order which granted Jenese Peters Riem-ers’s request to evict Roland from the parties’ former marital residence. We affirm.

I

[¶ 2] Jenese Peters-Riemers was granted a divorce from Roland Riemers. Under the terms of the Amended Judgment granting the divorce, Jenese was awarded the parties’ marital residence near Buxton, North Dakota. Roland failed to vacate the residence by the date set in the Amended Judgment. As a result, Je-nese requested that the trial court evict Roland from the residence. The trial court granted Jenese’s request for eviction and Roland appealed.

II

[¶ 3] On appeal, Roland asserts a number of arguments in support of his contention that the trial court erred in granting Jenese’s request for eviction.

[¶ 4] In Roland’s first argument, he asserts the trial court violated his homestead rights and the North Dakota Constitution by evicting him from the Buxton property. However, the Amended Judgment clearly awarded Jenese the parties’ marital residence. Roland has already attacked the trial court’s distribution of marital property in a separate appeal currently pending before this Court. Therefore, Roland’s argument on this point is an impermissible collateral attack on the Amended Judgment itself. See State v. Dvorak, 2000 ND 6, ¶ 31, 604 N.W.2d 445 (appellant’s argument that a protection order was invalid was an impermissible collateral attack on the order itself when raised in an appeal from a conviction for violating the order). Furthermore, this argument is without merit because Roland does not explain how the trial court violated homestead laws and the North Dakota Constitution other than to make the bare assertion that “tossing a family out in the cold of winter [is not] a ‘wholesome law1 ” and is, therefore, a violation of N.D. Const. art. XI, § 22. “ ‘Parties must do more than submit bare assertions to adequately raise a constitutional issue.’ ” Snyder v. N.D. Workers Comp. Bureau, 2001 ND 38, ¶ 19, 622 N.W.2d 712 (quoting Renault v. N.D. Workers Comp. Bureau, 1999 ND 187, ¶ 14, 601 N.W.2d 580).

[¶ 5] Roland also argues the trial court erred in granting the eviction because under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-25.1, a contempt proceeding was the only method Jenese could use to enforce the divorce judgment. Section 14-05-25.1, N.D.C.C., provides “[flailure to comply with the provisions of a separation or divorce decree relating to distribution of the property of the parties constitutes contempt of court.” While N.D.C.C. § 14-05-25.1 provides for contempt proceedings to enforce divorce judgments, nothing in this statute prohibits a party from bringing an eviction action when a person fails to vacate the marital residence by the date set in the divorce judgment. Thus, N.D.C.C. § 14-05-25.1 does not bar Jenese’s eviction action.

[¶ 6] In his third argument, Roland contends no evidence was submitted to show that he was in wrongful possession of the Buxton property. He admits, however, that he has remained on this property past the date on which he was required to vacate by the Amended Judgment. Thus, he was continuing to possess the property in violation of the Amended Judgment and an eviction action against him was, therefore, maintainable. See N.D.C.C. § 33-06-01(6) (eviction action maintainable against a party who “continues wrongfully in possession after a judgment in partition or after a sale under an order or decree of a district court”).

[¶ 7] In his fourth argument, Roland contends the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the eviction order because Roland filed his appeal from the trial court’s oral eviction order before the written eviction order was filed. We find no support for the proposition that a party may deprive a court of jurisdiction to enter a written order by filing a premature appeal from an oral order. See Morley v. Morley, 440 N.W.2d 493, 495 n. 2 (N.D.1989) (“A ruling which is incomplete is not appealable.”). Accordingly, this argument is without merit. See Snyder, 2001 ND 38, ¶ 20, 622 N.W.2d 712 (“Without citations to relevant authority or supportive reasoning, an argument is assumed to be without merit.”).

Ill

[¶ 8] In his brief, Roland asserts the guidelines relied on by the trial court to deny his request for a stay at a December 5, 2001, hearing are unconstitutional because they are impossible to meet and violate N.D. Const. art. I, § 1. Additionally, Roland contends this Court exceeded its authority in promulgating rules on stays.

[¶ 9] There is nothing in the record indicating that a hearing was held on December 5, 2001, and no transcript of such a hearing was provided. There is an order in the record which indicates Roland was denied a request for a stay at a hearing on November 27, 2001, but there is no transcript of this hearing. Thus, it is impossible to determine what guidelines the trial court relied on in denying Roland’s request for a stay. See Owan v. Kindel, 347 N.W.2d 577, 579 (N.D.1984) (“Failure to provide a transcript may prevent a party from being successful on appeal.”). Furthermore, because nothing in the record indicates Roland raised any argument regarding the constitutionality of the stay rules or guidelines to the trial court, we will not address his argument on this issue. See Allied Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dir. of N.D. Dept. of Transp., 1999 ND 2, ¶ 6, 589 N.W.2d 201 (“It is well established that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal.”).

IY

[¶ 10] We, therefore, affirm the order of the trial court.

[II11] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., WILLIAM A. NEUMANN, DALE V. SANDSTROM, and CAROL RONNING KAPSNER, JJ., concur.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: SANDSTROM, Justice.

license: Public Domain

text:
    2002 ND 52
    Larry FROISTAD, Petitioner and Appellant v. STATE of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee.
    No. 20010111.
    Supreme Court of North Dakota.
    March 18, 2002.

      Monte L. Rogneby, Vogel Law Firm, Bismarck, N.D., for petitioner and appellant.
    Steven J. Wild, State’s Attorney, Bowman, N.D., for respondent and appellee.
   SANDSTROM, Justice.

[¶ 1] Larry Froistad appealed from a Southwest Judicial District Court order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm, concluding the district court did not err in denying Froistad’s petition for post-conviction relief.

I

[¶ 2] On August 7, 1998, Froistad pled guilty to murdering his daughter. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief on June 14, 2000. Froistad argued he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea for several reasons: (1) the court failed to honor his request to withdraw his guilty plea, (2) the court failed to establish a factual basis for his guilty plea, (3) the court failed to ensure his plea was voluntary, (4) the court violated his right to be present during the proceedings, and (5) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. His petition was denied after a post-conviction relief hearing held January 31 and February 1, 2001.

[¶ 3] The district court had jurisdiction under N.D.C.C. §§ 27-05-06 and 29-32.1-03. This Court has jurisdiction under N.D. Const. art. VI, § 6, and N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-14.

II

[¶ 4] An attempt to withdraw a guilty plea is treated as a motion to withdraw under N.D.R.Crim.P. 32(d). Abdi v. State, 2000 ND 64, ¶ 10, 608 N.W.2d 292 (citing State v. Hendrick, 543 N.W.2d 217, 218 (N.D.1996)); State v. Abdullahi, 2000 ND 39, ¶ 7, 607 N.W.2d 561. Rule 32(d), N.D.R.Crim.P., provides:

(d) Plea Withdrawal.
(1) The court shall allow the defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty whenever the defendant, on a timely motion for withdrawal, proves withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.
(2) A motion for withdrawal is timely if made with due diligence, considering the nature of the allegations, and is not necessarily barred because made subsequent to judgment or sentence.
(3) In the absence of a showing that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice, a defendant may not withdraw a plea of guilty as a matter of right once the plea has been accepted by the court. Before sentence, the court in its discretion may allow the defendant to withdraw a plea for any fair and just reason unless the prosecution has been substantially prejudiced by reliance upon the defendant’s plea.

[¶ 5] The standard for withdrawal differs depending upon when the motion to withdraw is made. See, e.g., State v. Klein, 1997 ND 25, ¶¶ 12-16, 560 N.W.2d 198.

“This distinction rests upon practical considerations important to the proper administration of justice. Before sentencing, the inconvenience to court and prosecution resulting from a change of plea is ordinarily slight as compared with the public interests in protecting the right of the accused to trial by jury.”

State v. Millner, 409 N.W.2d 642, 644 (N.D.1987) (quoting Kadwell v. United States, 315 F.2d 667, 670 (9th Cir.1963)).

[¶ 6] A defendant has a right to withdraw a guilty plea before it is accepted by the court. State v. Klein, 1997 ND 25, ¶ 12, 560 N.W.2d 198; State v. Welch, 356 N.W.2d 147, 149 (N.D.1984). Klein also held, when a defendant’s guilty plea is part of a plea agreement, the guilty plea cannot be accepted until the plea agreement is accepted. Klein, at ¶ 19. Klein sought to follow federal case law regarding the acceptance of guilty pleas as part of plea agreements, but the case Klein followed is no longer good law. Klein relies upon United States v. Cordovar-Perez, a Ninth Circuit case, for the proposition a “ ‘plea agreement and the plea are “inextricably bound up together” such that deferment of the decision whether to accept the plea agreement carried with it postponement of the decision whether to accept the plea.’ ” Klein, at ¶ 19 (quoting United States v. Cordova-Perez, 65 F.3d 1552, 1556 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Sanchez, 609 F.2d 761, 762 (5th Cir.1980))). United States v. Cordovar-Perez was overruled by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Hyde, 520 U.S. 670, 117 S.Ct. 1630, 137 L.Ed.2d 935 (1997). The Court, in Hyde, held that when a defendant has pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, and the district court accepts the plea but defers decision on whether to accept the plea agreement, a “defendant may not withdraw his plea unless he shows a ‘fair and just reason’ under Rule 32(e).” Id. at 671, 117 S.Ct. 1630. “The Court ultimately held that when the district court has accepted a defendant’s plea but deferred accepting the plea agreement, the plea may not be withdrawn unless the defendant provides a ‘fair and just reason’ under Rule 32(e).” United States v. Grant, 117 F.3d 788, 791 (5th Cir.1997) (summary of the Hyde holding). The portion of Klein relying on Cordova-Perez is overruled, and we accept the standard set forth in Hyde. Id.

[¶ 7] If a district court rejects a plea agreement after a defendant has pled guilty, the court shall “afford the defendant the opportunity to then withdraw the plea.” N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(d)(4).

[¶ 8] “After a guilty plea is accepted, but before sentencing, the defendant may withdraw a guilty plea if necessary to correct a manifest injustice, or, if allowed in the court’s discretion, for any ‘fair and just’ reason unless the prosecution has been prejudiced by reliance on the plea.” Klein, 1997 ND 25, ¶ 13, 560 N.W.2d 198; see also State v. Sisson, 1997 ND 158, ¶ 14, 567 N.W.2d 839.

[¶ 9] “When a court has accepted a plea and imposed sentence, the defendant cannot withdraw the plea unless withdrawal is necessary to correct a ‘manifest injustice.’ ” Klein, 1997 ND 25, ¶ 15, 560 N.W.2d 198; see also Abdi v. State, 2000 ND 64, ¶ 10, 608 N.W.2d 292. The finding of whether a manifest injustice exists, which would necessitate the withdrawal of a guilty plea, rests within the court’s discretion and will not be reversed on appeal except for an abuse of discretion. Abdi, 2000 ND 64, ¶ 10, 608 N.W.2d 292. “An abuse of discretion under N.D.R.Crim.P. 32(d) occurs when the court’s legal discretion is not exercised in the interests of justice.” Abdi, at ¶ 10 (citing State v. Dalman, 520 N.W.2d 860, 862 (N.D.1994)).

Ill

[¶ 10] A defendant’s oral statement may be treated as a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. State v. Farrell, 2000 ND 26, ¶ 7, 606 N.W.2d 524. In Farrell, the district court refused to accept the sentence recommendation the State and Farrell had agreed upon. Id. at ¶ 4. After he was given a lengthier sentence than recommended, Farrell specifically asked, “Well then I have a right to change my plea then also, don’t I?” Id. at ¶ 5. The district court responded he did not have a right to change his plea and proceeded with the sentencing hearing. Id. at ¶ 5. The case was remanded to the district court to permit Farrell to withdraw his guilty plea because the district court did not substantially comply with the requirements of N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(c). Id. at ¶¶ 21-22.

[¶ 11] Other jurisdictions have treated oral statements at sentencing hearings as motions to withdraw guilty pleas. See Connecticut v. Johnson, 253 Conn. 1, 751 A.2d 298, 329 (2000) (“Your honor, I would just like to say that my plea of guilty was not voluntary and ... was not made with my full understanding and I ask that the court ... permit me to withdraw my plea.”); United States v. Casey, 951 F.2d 892, 893 (8th Cir.1991) (“Well, quite honestly, Judge, because of the prosecution’s intimidation, coercion, threats of scandal and slander, and almost downright blackmail, I think, under any ordinary circumstances, one might consider a plea of guilty.”); United States v. Turner, 898 F.2d 705, 713 (9th Cir.1990) (“I feel that I am being blamed for a lot of stuff I didn’t do.”).

[¶ 12] Froistad entered his guilty plea on August 7, 1998. The district court conducted a Rule 11 inquiry and approved the plea agreement in all respects, subject to a review of the presentence report. In the two months between his plea of guilty and his sentencing hearing, Froistad claims he made six attempts to withdraw his guilty plea. Of the six attempts, only two were directed to the district court and could possibly be considered attempts to withdraw his guilty plea. In his October 8, 1998, response to the presentence investigation report, Froistad wrote, “With all these facts in consideration, it seems clear that the defendant should be afforded every opportunity to be fairly represented in court. At the very least, he should be permitted to withdraw the guilty plea, dismiss the San Diego attorneys and be appointed an attorney by the court.”

[¶ 13] At his sentencing hearing, also held on October 8, 1998, the district court provided Froistad with several opportunities to request a withdrawal of his guilty plea.

THE COURT: Very well, Mr. Froistad, you have the right to address the Court and submit such comments as you choose. You may do so at this time. You may remain seated, if you are more comfortable, or stand, whatever you choose.
MR. FROISTAD: Your Honor, I guess the only thing I really have to say is that I’m not innocent of everything but I am innocent of murder. The physical evidence says so. If I’d had some decent representation, I wouldn’t be here now. I’m sorry for what I did do. I can’t take it back. That’s probably a good way to end.
THE COURT: You may take your time and submit any additional comments as you wish. If you’d like to take a moment to make sure that you’ve collected all of your thoughts. Do you wish to add anything else, Mr. Frois-tad?
MR. FROISTAD: No.

At this point, the district court “accepted the negotiated plea agreement in all respects.”

[¶ 14] Again before the district court imposed Froistad’s sentence, it gave him an opportunity to speak.

THE COURT: Alright. I am prepared now to impose sentence, is there anything else you’d like to add?
MR. FROISTAD: Your Honor, with regard to the confession. I was not only under the influence of substances, but in a psychotic state. I don’t know if you’ve ever been in a psychotic state, it’s like having several nightmares at once that you can’t wake up from or that you do wake up from and that don’t go away. This is the condition I was in when I wrote the confession. I believe that that’s sufficient reason to call it into question, but I’m not going to argue with the Court about it at this time.
THE COURT: As indicated by [the State’s attorney] at the plea hearing, both the strengths and the weaknesses of the State’s case were considered by the State when they entered into this plea agreement with you. That is, whether there was any question at all about the merits of your admissions or the admission of that statement into evidence. Those doubts are resolved by the plea agreement. They were considered in providing to you a sentence less than the maximum that would be provided by our law in North Dakota. Anything else you’d like to add?
MR. FROISTAD: No, sir.

Finally, after the district court had recited the term and conditions of the sentence it imposed, it gave Froistad one final opportunity to speak.

THE COURT: Mr. Froistad, do you understand the terms and conditions of the sentence I have just imposed?
MR. FROISTAD: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you have any questions about it now?
MR. FROISTAD: No.

[¶ 15] Unlike the defendant in Farrell, Froistad did not ask the trial court to withdraw his plea. State v. Farrell, 2000 ND 26, ¶ 5, 606 N.W.2d 524. Froistad asserted he should be “permitted to withdraw [his] guilty plea.” At the sentencing hearing, the district court asked Froistad no less than four times whether he had anything else to say. Froistad stated he wasn’t “innocent of everything” but he was “innocent of murder.” A defendant may maintain his or her innocence and still plead guilty. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970) (“An individual accused of crime may voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the crime.”). Froistad also questioned his mental state at the time he confessed, but conceded he wasn’t “going to argue with the Court about it at this time.” Frois-tad’s responses show he wished to maintain his innocence and he questioned his mental state. Froistad gave no indication he wished to withdraw his plea, after being given multiple opportunities to raise the issue at the sentencing hearing.

[¶ 16] Froistad’s comments did not constitute a request to withdraw his guilty plea. The district court did not err in finding Froistad made no request to withdraw his guilty plea.

IV

[¶ 17] Rule 11(e), N.D.R.Crim.P., provides:

Notwithstanding the acceptance of a plea of guilty, the court should not enter a judgment or dispositional order upon such plea without making such inquiry as shall satisfy it that there is a factual basis for the plea.

[¶ 18] This Court, in Kaiser v. State, stated the importance of establishing a factual basis for a guilty plea.

Obtaining a factual basis for the plea serves important purposes. First, it assures that a defendant who seeks to plead guilty is in fact guilty. Persons whose conduct does not fall within the charges brought by a prosecutor should not plead guilty, but unless a factual basis is required, the risk of innocent persons being adjudicated guilty is enhanced. In addition, the finding of a factual basis, when made a matter of record, eliminates post-conviction factfinding proceedings aimed at determining the accuracy of guilty pleas. Finally, the information developed in determining the factual basis is often useful to the court at sentencing. A.B.A. Standards for Criminal Justice, Receiving and Acting Upon a Plea, Section 14-1.6(a), page 14.34.

417 N.W.2d 175,178 (N.D.1987).

[¶ 19] To establish a factual basis for the plea, the court must ascertain “that the conduct which the defendant admits constitutes the offense charged in the indictment or information or an offense included therein to which the defendant has pleaded guilty.” Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29, 38, 116 S.Ct. 356, 133 L.Ed.2d 271 (1995) (quoting Advisory Committee’s Notes on Fed.R.Crim.P. 11); see also United States v. Marks, 38 F.3d 1009, 1012 (8th Cir.1994). The court accepting the plea should compare the elements of the crime charged to the facts admitted to by the defendant. 24 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 611.08[1] (3d ed.2001).

[¶ 20] Previous North Dakota cases have dealt with the absence of a factual basis, but not with the adequacy of a factual basis. Federal case law provides some guidance. A factual basis setting forth the elements of the crime may be enough if sufficiently specific. United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 695 (5th Cir.1997); Kloner v. United States, 535 F.2d 730, 734 (2d Cir.1976) (“the indictment specified conduct constituting a relatively simple offense — that the defendant ‘knowingly and willfully took and carried away [from a financial institution] with intent to steal, money in excess of $100.00’ ”).

[¶ 21] Federal case law also allows courts to consider information beyond what is presented at the plea hearing. United States v. Andrades, 169 F.3d 131, 136 (2d Cir.1999); Howard v. United States, 135 F.3d 506, 509-10 (7th Cir.1998). In Howard, the court stated the district court was entitled to take into account “information in the presentence report, when it makes its final determination ... that there is an adequate factual basis for a guilty plea.” Howard, at 509.

[If 22] Froistad cites to two cases to support his position the factual basis given was not adequate, Kaiser v. State, 417 N.W.2d 175, 178-79 (N.D.1987), and Rizzo v. United States, 516 F.2d 789, 793-94 (2nd Cir.1975). Both cases are distinguishable from Froistad’s position. In Kaiser, no factual basis was given. 417 N.W.2d at 178-79. In Rizzo, the defendant pled guilty to a charge of “obstructing, delaying and affecting commerce and the movement of articles in commerce by obtaining money ... through the inducement of actual and threatened use of force, violence and fear.” 516 F.2d at 791. The court held the factual basis was inadequate because the record did not show any evidence of use of force, violence, or fear. Id. at 793-94. This, coupled with the defendant’s statement he “understood [his] role” in the acts charged in the indictment, led the court to allow the defendant to plead again. Id. at 794.

[¶ 23] Froistad was charged with a violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01(l)(a), “intentionally or knowingly causfing] the death of another human being.” The post-conviction court found two documents, taken together, provided a factual basis for Froistad’s guilty plea. The first is the plea agreement itself. The factual basis set forth in the plea agreement states: I, Larry Froistad, on the 31st day of May, 1995, did knowingly cause the death of another human being, namely, [my daughter]. Such act constitutes the crime of murder, a class AA felony in violation of 12.1-16-01(a) of the North Dakota Century Code.

A document filed as Exhibit 3 provided:

Larry Froistad, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and states:
1. That on or about the 31st day of May, 1995, in Bowman County, North Dakota, a fire occurred in my residence. My daughter ... died in that fire.
2. That I confessed over the Internet, in detail, that I had killed my daughter in the May 31, 1995, fire.

The district court allowed Exhibit 3 to be used as an additional factual basis and accepted Froistad’s guilty plea. The two factual basis statements given and signed by Froistad acknowledge his conduct constituted a violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01(l)(a). In addition, the presentence investigation report prepared for Froistad’s sentencing hearing contains information sufficient to create a factual basis for Froistad’s guilty plea.

[¶ 24] The district court did not err in finding a sufficient factual basis exists for Froistad’s guilty plea.

V

[¶ 25] Froistad argues the district court erred in not following the procedures set out in N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 to ensure his plea was knowing and voluntary. Rule 11, N.D.R.Crim.P., provides, in part:

(b) The court may not accept a plea of guilty without first, by addressing the defendant personally [except as provided in Rule 43(c)] in open court, informing the defendant of and determining that the defendant understands the following:
(1) The nature of the charge to which the plea is offered;
(2) The mandatory minimum punishment, if any, and the maximum possible punishment provided by the statute defining the offense to which the plea is offered;
(3) That the defendant has the right to plead not guilty, or to persist in that plea if it has already been made, or to plead guilty;
(4) That if the defendant pleads guilty there will not be a further trial of any kind, so that by pleading guilty the defendant waives the right to a trial by jury or otherwise and the right to be confronted with adverse witnesses; and
(5) If the defendant is not represented by an attorney, that the defendant has the right to be represented by an attorney at every stage of the proceeding against the defendant and, if necessary, one will be appointed to represent the defendant, as provided in N.D.R.Crim.P. 44.
(c) The court shall not accept a plea of guilty without first, by addressing the defendant personally [except as provided in Rule 43(c)] in open court, determining that the plea is voluntary and not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from a plea agreement. The court shall also inquire as to whether the defendant’s willingness to plead guilty results from previous discussion between the prosecuting attorney and the defendant or the defendant’s attorney.

“The purpose of the procedure outlined in Rule 11(b) is to ensure that the defendant is fully aware of the- consequences of a guilty plea before he enters his plea.” State v. Boushee, 459 N.W.2d 552, 555 (N.D.1990) (quoting State v. Schumacher, 452 N.W.2d 345, 346 (N.D.1990)).

A

[¶ 26] Froistad asserts the district court should have conducted an inquiry under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 at the time of his sentencing hearing before it accepted the plea agreement using Exhibit 3 as part of the factual basis. Exhibit 3 was a supplemental factual basis. Froistad mischar-acterizes Exhibit 3 as a different plea agreement. It was not a different plea agreement. The district court had no duty to conduct a second Rule 11 inquiry at the sentencing hearing.

B

[¶ 27] Froistad also argues he was influenced by the medications he was taking at the time he entered his guilty plea. Froistad asserts, in order to comply with N.D.R.Crim.P. 11, a court must inquire about the type of medications, the dosages, and the effect the medications might have on a defendant’s faculties before the court accepts a plea. United States v. Damon, 191 F.3d 561, 565-66 (4th Cir.1999).

[¶ -28] Damon does not mandate that the specific medications and dosages be reviewed by the district court during a Rule 11 inquiry; rather, it states:

[T]he court must broaden its inquiry to satisfy itself that the plea is being made knowingly and voluntarily. The district court erred when it failed to inquire about what effect, if any, [the defendant’s] medication had on his ability to make a voluntary plea and to understand the consequences.

Id. at 565. The court remanded the case and suggested the district court would want to “examine the medical records to determine the type, amount, and schedule of medication taken by [the defendant] before he entered his plea” in order to make a “retrospective examination of a defendant’s state of mind when he entered his plea.” Id. at 565-66. An inquiry into the specific nature of the medications a defendant was taking would be necessary in an attempt to re-create a defendant’s state of mind. Id.

[¶ 29] In Froistad’s case, the district court was not conducting a “retrospective examination.” During his plea hearing, the district court asked Froistad about the medications he was taking.

The Court: Are you presently under the influence of alcoholic beverages or any other drugs or chemicals whether or not prescribed by a physician?
Froistad: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: And do those — well, let’s break that apart. Are you presently under the influence of alcohol?
Froistad: No.
The Court: Are you presently under the influence of any drugs or chemicals other than those prescribed by a licensed physician?
Froistad: No, Your Honor.
The Court: Alright. And do the prescribed medications that you are apparently taking, and you need not mention them, do they interfere with your ability to make a good judgment today?
Froistad: Not in any serious fashion, no.
The Court: Well, not in any serious fashion, we need to know about that because I can’t accept your plea if you are unable to think clearly today.
Froistad: They’re anti-depressants and anti-anxiety so they affect my mood but not my thinking faculties.
The Court: You’re able to think clearly and make a good judgment today about this proceeding and about other ordinary affairs of your life today?
Froistad: Yes, Your Honor.

[¶ 30] During the plea hearing, the district court asked proper follow-up questions when Froistad answered he was taking prescribed medications. Froistad indicated he was able to think clearly. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Froistad was confused or unaware of what was taking place during the proceeding.

[¶ 31] The post-conviction court did not err in finding Froistad’s plea was voluntary.

VI

[¶ 32] On appeal, Froistad argues his right to be present was violated when a telephone conference, held after his plea hearing, took place without his participation. Rule 43, N.D.R.Crim.P., provides:

(a) The defendant must be present at the arraignment, at the time of the plea, at every stage of the trial including the impaneling of the jury and the return of the verdict, and at the imposition of sentence, except as otherwise provided by this Rule.
(b) The further progress of the trial, including the return of the verdict and the imposition of sentence may not be prevented and the defendant waives the right to be present if the defendant,. initially present at trial, or having pleaded guilty,
(1) is voluntarily absent after the trial has begun (whether or not the defendant has been informed by the court of the obligation to remain during the trial), or
(2) is voluntarily absent at the imposition of sentence, or
(3) after being warned by the court that disruptive conduct will cause the removal of the defendant from the courtroom, persists in conduct that justifies the defendant’s exclusion from the courtroom.
(c) A defendant need not be present
(1) when represented by counsel and the defendant is an organization, not an individual;
(2) when the offense is punishable by fine or by imprisonment for not more than one year or both, and the court, with the written consent of the defendant, permits arraignment, plea, trial, and imposition of sentence in the defendant’s absence;
(3) when the proceeding involves only a conference or hearing upon a question of law; or
(4) when the proceeding involves a correction or reduction of sentence under Rule 35.

The North Dakota Constitution also addresses an accused party’s right to be present at proceedings:

In criminal prosecutions in any court whatever, the party accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial; to have the process of the court to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf; and to appear and defend in person and with counsel.

N.D. Const, art I, § 12.

[¶ 33] Froistad argues the telephone conference violated his rights because he would have “objected to the plea going forward, which would have resulted in this case going to trial” had he been present. Froistad characterizes the telephone conference as “binding him to a new plea agreement” and states he “did not give [his attorney] permission to change the terms of the plea agreement, [and] did not give him permission to enter into a second plea agreement.”

[¶ 34] In a letter dated September 17, 1998, the district court stated its understanding of the telephone conversation:

This will confirm my telephone conference with Attorneys [for the State and for Froistad] concerning the factual basis to be submitted in support of the guilty plea. I understand that a written stipulation will be submitted at the hearing to supply the required factual basis. That will obviate the necessity of ruling on whether Plaintiffs Exh. 2, submitted at the plea hearing as the factual basis, may be kept confidential. Instead, Plaintiffs Exh. 2 will not be received into evidence and will not be made a part of the public record. However, I will retain that exhibit with the sealed PSI report in the event there is any later proceeding in this case.

The focus of the telephone conference was whether “Exhibit 2” should, or could, be kept confidential.

[¶ 35] The post-conviction court found the telephone conference between Frois-tad’s lawyers, the State, and the district court was a pretrial conference and not a critical stage of the trial. The post-conviction court also found, even if the conference could be considered a critical stage of the trial, any error resulting from Frois-tad’s absence was harmless. The post-conviction court’s order provided:

This court agrees any conference between the court and attorneys in a criminal proceeding should include the defendant to avoid any appearance of impropriety, the court is not convinced a conference call wherein the court informs the parties of a ruling and how the court will proceed under that ruling is a critical phase of the trial under the circumstances involved in the present case.

[¶36] A defendant’s presence is not required at a proceeding involving “only a conference or hearing upon a question of law.” N.D.R.Crim.P. 43(c)(3). The post-conviction court did not err in finding Froistad’s presence was not required at the telephone conference.

VII

[¶ 37] A criminal defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel. Abdi v. State, 2000 ND 64, ¶ 29, 608 N.W.2d 292. The Court has summarized the test for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in Stoppleworth v. State, 501 N.W.2d 325, 327 (N.D.1993).

When a defendant raises an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel argument, it is the defendant’s burden to prove that counsel’s assistance was ineffective at trial. In carrying that burden, the defendant must establish two elements. First, the defendant must prove that the counsel’s performance was deficient. Second, the defendant must prove that the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. In attempting to prove the first element, the defendant must overcome the strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. The second element requires the defendant to prove that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

Id. (citations and quotations omitted).

[¶ 38] Froistad gave ten examples of his counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance. The post-conviction court set forth a detailed review of the ten examples and the evidence to support them.

First, Froistad claims his attorneys failed to properly investigate the case. Other than statements that he felt they did not do enough for what they were paid, no other evidence was provided by Froistad in regards to this allegation.
Second, Froistad claims his attorneys failed to request a change of venue. The case was settled as a plea agreement, and a change of venue would be appropriate only if proceeding to trial.
Third, Froistad claims his attorneys failed to secure a mental health professional to testify regarding his mental state at the time he made his confession. Testimony was received that a mental health professional did meet with Frois-tad, did not do a report, and has since passed away. Such a strategy may have been employed at a trial, yet there is no evidence overcoming the presumption that counsel’s conduct fell outside the range of reasonable professional assistance. Froistad continues to argue his confession could have been attacked through mental competency examination. This court is not persuaded that Froistad’s counsel did not look at this stratagem as a mental health professional did visit Froistad per counsels request.
Fourth, Froistad claims his attorneys improperly pressured him to plead to a crime he did not commit. This court received testimony that Froistad was told his case was unwinnable and the plea agreement was a good deal between federal and state charges pending. Froistad claims he did not commit the crime even though he pled guilty to that same crime. Froistad claims his attorneys’ attitude towards the case changed when child pornography was found on his computer. Further, the state disclosed two witnesses who claimed Frois-tad’s daughter was the victim depicted in the pornography. The complexion of the case obviously changed with the discovery of this material and a change of strategy due to this new evidence would be understandable and inevitable. This court does not find Froistad’s attorneys acted wrongly in pursuing a plea agreement.
Fifth, Froistad claims his attorneys informed him they would plan on losing if the case proceeded to trial. The only evidence of this is Froistad’s testimony. This court discounts those statements as self-serving and with no other proof finds no basis for this allegation.
Sixth, Froistad claims his attorneys failed to withdraw his plea when he requested they do so. Again, the only evidence of this is Froistad’s testimony and references to the same in the PSI and letter to the court. This court has found that Froistad did not affirmatively ask to withdraw his plea even though he had ample opportunity to do so before the trial judge.
Seventh, Froistad claims his counsel failed to withdraw when asked. Testimony is that he may have wanted different counsel and was informed he would have to affirmatively ask that his counsel be changed. No evidence was presented indicating he requested this of the court.
Eighth, Froistad claims his counsel negotiated a second plea agreement without his approval. A second agreement was not negotiated, only the factual basis was changed, and that complied with Froistad’s wishes of protecting the victim, his daughter. Froistad signed all documents regarding the plea agreement and factual basis submitted to the court.
Ninth, Froistad claims his counsel failed to properly communicate with him. He has testified that for the money paid he did not have the access he desired of his attorneys. He does admit he was able to speak with local counsel and did speak with his California attorneys. Froistad’s father testified he was able to communicate with Froistad’s attorneys and was even given a home phone number to use. This court does not find evidence to show counsels’ conduct in regards to communication fell below reasonable professional assistance.
Tenth, Froistad claims his attorneys failed to properly respond to the PSI. Froistad responded, himself, to the PSI intelligently. Attorneys can only rely on a defendant’s information in responding to a PSI and Froistad did respond. This court does not find any irregularity in Froistad responding to the PSI.

[¶ 39] As the post-conviction court detailed, none of Froistad’s assertions show his attorneys’ performance was deficient. Froistad was not able to overcome the “strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance” necessary to succeed with an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Stoppleworth v. State, 501 N.W.2d 325, 327 (N.D.1993).

[¶ 40] The post-conviction court, nevertheless, proceeded to the second prong of the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test and also concluded the proceeding would not have resulted in a different outcome because of the actions of Froistad’s counsel.

[¶ 41] The post-conviction court did not err in finding Froistad did not suffer from ineffective assistance of counsel.

VIII

[¶ 42] The district court’s order denying Froistad’s post-conviction relief is affirmed.

[¶ 43] VANDEWALLE, C.J., NEUMANN, MARING, JJ., and BRUCE E. BOHLMAN, District Judge, concur.

[¶ 44] BRUCE E. BOHLMAN, District Judge, sitting in place of KAPSNER, J., disqualified.

      . The federal counterpart to our Rule 11(e) is found in Federal Rule 11(f), and is nearly identical to our rule.
      Notwithstanding the acceptance of a plea of guilty, the court should not enter a judgment upon such plea without making such inquiry as shall satisfy it that there is a factual basis for the plea.
      Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(f).


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    2002 ND 53
    Jerome KELSH, Petitioner, v. Alvin A. JAEGER, in his capacity as Secretary of State, State of North Dakota, Respondent.
    No. 20020060.
    Supreme Court of North Dakota.
    March 28, 2002.

      David R. Bliss, Bliss Law Office, Bismarck, for petitioner.
    Wayne K. Stenehjem, Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Douglas Alan Bahr (appeared), Solicitor General, Attorney General’s Office, Bismarck, for respondent and Office of Attorney General.
    Jeffrey S. Weikum, Pagel Weikum Law Firm, Bismarck, for North Dakota Democratic-NPL Party.
    Thomas D. Kelsch, Kelsch, Kelsch, Ruff & Kranda, Mandan, for North Dakota Republican Party.
   PER CURIAM.

[¶ 1] Jerome Kelsh petitions this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition enjoining the Secretary of State from administering an election for the office of state senator in District 26 for the 2002 primary and general elections. Kelsh asserts N.D.C.C. § 54-03-01.8 truncates his four-year senate term and thereby violates N.D. Const, art. IV, § 4, requiring a senator’s term must be for four years. We hold the language in N.D.C.C. § 54-03-01.8 that allows an incumbent state senator to decide whether to stop an election for state senator in District 26 in 2002 is an impermissible delegation of legislative power, and we strike it. By allowing an election for state senator in District 26 in 2002, N.D.C.C. § 54-03-01.8 provides the electors in this newly redrawn district their constitutional right to elect a state senator from the district. We hold the remainder of the statute, in truncating Kelsh’s term, does not violate N.D. Const, art. IV, § 4, and we deny the writ.

I

[¶ 2] A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy to prevent an inferi- or body or tribunal from acting without or in excess of jurisdiction when there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the course of law. N.D.C.C. § 32-35-01; Old Broadway Corp. v. Baches, 450 N.W.2d 734, 736 (N.D.1990). Under N.D. Const, art. VI, § 2, this Court has authority to exercise original jurisdiction and to issue remedial writs necessary to properly exercise its jurisdiction. The power vested in this Court to issue original writs is discretionary and may not be invoked as a matter of right. State ex rel. Kusler v. Sinner, 491 N.W.2d 382, 384 (N.D.1992). It is well-settled that our power to exercise original jurisdiction extends only to those cases in which the questions presented are publici juris and affect the sovereignty of the state, the franchises or prerogatives of the state, or the liberties of its people. Id. To warrant the exercise of this Court’s original jurisdiction, the interest of the state must be primary, not incidental, and the public — the community at large — must have an interest or right that may be affected. State ex rel. Wefald v. Meier, 347 N.W.2d 562, 564 (N.D.1984).

[¶ 3] The issues in this case involve the people’s right to elect representatives to the state Legislature and the Legislature’s right to truncate the terms of elected representatives by legislative redistricting. The case involves the people’s right of franchise and the Legislature’s authority to effectively disenfranchise some of the electorate. Few matters encompass more public interest than issues involving the power of the people to govern themselves through the voting process. See Meier, 347 N.W.2d at 564. We conclude, therefore, this matter is of public interest and warrants our exercise of original jurisdiction.

II

[¶ 4] Kelsh asserts N.D.C.C. § 54-03-01.8, as amended in 2001 by the 57th Legislative Assembly, violates N.D. Const, art. IV, § 4, because the statute effectively reduces his term as an elected senator in District 26 from four years to two years. The 57th Legislative Assembly adopted a redistricting plan after the 2000 federal census. The plan reduced the number of senatorial districts from 49 to 47, fixed the number of senators and representatives, and divided the state into senatorial districts.

[¶ 5] Relevant to this case is N.D. Const, art. TV, § 2, which states, in part:

The legislative assembly shall fix the number of senators and representatives and divide the state into as many senatorial districts of compact and contiguous territory as there are senators. The districts thus ascertained and determined after the 1990 federal decennial census shall continue until the adjournment of the first regular session after each federal decennial census, or until changed by law.
The legislative assembly shall guarantee, as nearly as is practicable, that every elector is equal to every other elector in the state in the power to cast ballots for legislative candidates. A senator and at least two representatives must be apportioned to each senatorial district and be elected at large or from subdistricts from those districts.

Also relevant is N.D. Const, art. IV, § 3, which states:

The legislative assembly shall establish by law a procedure whereby one-half of the members of the senate and one-half of the members of the house of representatives, as nearly as is practicable, are elected biennially.

The 57th Legislative Assembly in 2001 amended N.D.C.C. § 54-03-01.8 to provide:

A senator from an odd-numbered district must be elected in 2002 for a term of four years and a senator from an even-numbered district must be elected in 2004 for a term of four years. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a senator from an even-numbered district in which there is another incumbent senator as a result of legislative redistricting must be elected in 2002 for a term of two years. However, if as a result of legislative redistrieting a senator elected in 1998 is placed in an even-numbered district there must be an election in 2002 for a term of two years unless the senator elected in 1998 files by February 15, 2002, a written statement with the secretary of state stating that the senator elected in 1998 agrees that there need not be an election for a senator in 2002 and that the senator elected in 2000 may continue that senator’s term; based on this requirement, districts twenty and twenty-six may be required to elect senators in 2002. A senator from an odd-numbered district in which there is another incumbent senator must be elected in 2002 for a term of four years; based on this requirement, district thirty-one must elect a senator in 2002. The term of a senator from an even-numbered district who is placed in an odd-numbered district as a result of legislative redistricting expires as of December 1, 2002; based on this requirement, the term of the senator elected in district twelve in 2000 expires as of December 1, 2002, and district twenty-three must elect a senator in 2002.

[¶ 6] Joel Heitkamp was elected in 1998 to a four-year term as state senator in former District 27. Jerome Kelsh was elected in 2000 to a four-year term as state senator in District 26. As part of the Legislature’s 2001 redistricting plan, a substantial portion of former District 27, including Heitkamp’s township of residence, was placed in District 26. Section 54-03-01.8, N.D.C.C., requires District 26 to elect a state senator in 2002 for a two-year term unless Heitkamp, the senator who was elected in 1998 and was placed in District 26 by the redistricting plan, filed a written statement by February 15, 2002 agreeing that there need not be an election in District 26 for state senator in 2002. Heitkamp did not file such a statement by February 15, 2002. Consequently, N.D.C.C. § 54-03-01.8 requires District 26 to elect a state senator in 2002 and truncates the term of Kelsh, the incumbent senator in District 26 elected to a four-year term in 2000. Kelsh asserts the statute, by reducing his four-year term to a two-year term, violates N.D. Const, art. IV, § 4, which provides: ■ “Senators and representatives must be elected for terms of four years.” Kelsh asks this Court to declare the statute unconstitutional and to issue a writ of prohibition enjoining the Secretary of State from administering a primary and a general election to elect a state senator in District 26 in 2002. The resolution of this issue requires us to construe our state constitution and to determine whether the Legislature, in amending N.D.C.C. § 54-03-01.8, contravened any part of it.

[¶ 7] When interpreting the state constitution, our overriding objective is to give effect to the intent and purpose of the people adopting the constitutional statement. City of Bismarck v. Fettig, 1999 ND 193, ¶ 8, 601 N.W.2d 247. The intent and purpose of a constitutional provision is to be determined, if possible, from the language itself. State v. Hagerty, 1998 ND 122, ¶ 13, 580 N.W.2d 139. We give words in a constitutional provision their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning. Tormaschy v. Hjelle, 210 N.W.2d 100, 102 (N.D.1973). When interpreting constitutional provisions, we apply general principles of statutory construction. Hagerty, at ¶ 13. We must give effect and meaning to every provision and reconcile, if possible, apparently inconsistent provisions. State ex rel. Sanstead v. Freed, 251 N.W.2d 898, 908 (N.D.1977). We presume the people do not intend absurd or ludicrous results in adopting constitutional provisions, and we therefore construe such provisions to avoid those results. North Dakota Comm’n on Med. Competency v. Racek, 527 N.W.2d 262, 266 (N.D.1995).

[¶ 8] This Court addressed predecessor constitutional provisions involving staggered senate terms and the four-year term requirement in State ex rel. Williams v. Meyer, 20 N.D. 628, 127 N.W. 834 (1910). In Meyer, a senator elected to a four-year term in 1908 was required by the Legislature’s reapportionment of senate districts to run for reelection in 1910, after having served only two years of his term. In support of his argument that he was entitled to serve out his four-year term, the senator relied on Section 27 of the constitution, the predecessor to N.D. Const, art. IV, § 4, which provided “Senators shall be elected for the term of four years, except as hereinafter provided.” The relator, a candidate for nomination in the 1910 primary election in the senator’s district, relied on Section 30 of the constitution, the predecessor to N.D. Const, art. IV, § 3, which provided:

The senatorial districts shall be numbered consecutively from one upwards according to the number of districts prescribed, and the number of senators shall be divided into two classes. Those elected in the districts designated by even numbers shall constitute one class, and those elected in the districts designated by odd numbers shall constitute the other class. The senators of one class elected in the year 1890 shall hold their office for two years. Those of the other class shall hold their office for four years and the determination of the two classes shall be by lot, so that one half of the senators, as nearly as practicable, may be elected biennially.

[¶ 9] The Meyer Court held the senator’s term could be truncated under the circumstances, reasoning:

On the one hand, it is contended that the provisions of section 27, supra, that senators shall be elected for the term of four years, controls, while the relator urges that the exception to that section, namely, “except as hereinafter provided,” applies in this instance; that the provision of section 30 that the senators shall be divided into two classes, those in the even-numbered districts constituting one class and those in the odd-numbered districts the other class so that one-half of the senators, as nearly as practicable, may be elected biennially, is controlling. We are of the opinion that the contention of the relator must be sustained. It was the clear intent of the constitutional convention to provide a Senate which should at all times, as nearly as practicable, be composed of members one-half of whom were experienced in the duties of their offices_ [The Senate] is a continuous body. It never goes out of existence, and the purpose of the constitutional provisions on this subject which we have quoted was to maintain a Senate which should at all times have one-half its members, as nearly as practicable, experienced men.... The phrase, “except as hereinafter provided,” referred to, relates not only to the senators of the even class elected in 1890, but it is applicable to those elected after any reapportionment at which new districts are created, so far as necessary to bring them into harmony with the plan of the Constitution regarding the membership of the Senate and the terms of office of the senators.... To place a literal interpretation on the four-year provision as to the term of senators would classify some odd-numbered districts with some even-numbered districts, and interminable confusion and disorder would result. An illustration is convincing. By the reapportionment made in 1901 nine new senatorial districts were created, and the election of nine new senators provided for. If these nine new senators were all elected for four years and their districts thereby added to one of the two classes as fixed in 1891, the fundamental principle that the two classes remain as nearly as practicable equal in numbers would be clearly violated, and one would thereafter have contained 15 members and the other 25, and, had a second reapportionment followed in a corresponding year, new districts created by the second reapportionment would still further have increased the disproportion in the numbers of the districts in the two classes.

Meyer, 20 N.D. at 631-33, 127 N.W. at 836. The Meyer court held the four-year term requirement of Section 27 was subservient to the Section 30 requirement of staggered senatorial terms when necessary to ensure that the senate maintain, “as nearly as practicable,” one-half of its number as experienced members.

[¶ 10] There are conflicting Attorney General opinions addressing this issue. In a March 4, 1992, letter opinion, Attorney General Nicholas J. Spaeth concluded, without discussing the Meyer decision, that N.D. Const, art. IV, § 4, precluded the Legislature from constitutionally limiting the term of a senator elected in the general election in 1990 to a term of two years by requiring those senators to run again in 1992. In a July 13, 2001, letter opinion, Attorney General Wayne Ste-nehjem overruled the 1992 letter opinion. Attorney General Stenehjem relied in part on the Meyer decision and concluded “the Legislative Assembly has, as part of its constitutional authority to maintain the staggering of terms for senators and representatives, the authority to reduce the terms of one or more senators or representatives from four years to two years if necessary to effectuate an otherwise valid redistricting plan.”

[¶ 11] The phrase in Section 27, “except as hereinafter provided,” relied upon by the Meyer court to support its decision, was deleted from the N.D. Const, art. IV, § 4, mandate of four-year senate terms when Section 4 was approved by the electorate on June 12, 1984, as a part of a rewrite of the legislative article, and became effective December 1, 1986. See 1983 N.D. Sess. Laws ch. 728, § 4. The provision was again amended and approved by the voters, effective July 1, •1997, in its current form, but the previously deleted language was not restored. 1997 N.D. Sess. Laws ch. 570, § 2. The Secretary of State argues the Meyer reasoning nevertheless controls and supports the truncation of Kelsh’s senate term.

[¶ 12] There are two feasible conclusions about the people’s intent in deleting the language at issue. The deletion of the language could be construed as an expression of the people’s intent to preclude the Legislature from truncating the term of a state senator to less than four years under any circumstances. However, the deletion of the language could also be construed as a recognition that the deleted language was unnecessary surplusage, because the constitutional provisions can be and must be harmonized, without any need to rely on the deleted language. See Little v. Traynor, 1997 ND 128, ¶ 29, 565 N.W.2d 766 (stating the most plausible explanation for the Legislature deleting the statutory language is that the language was found to be surplusage).

[¶ 13] In construing and interpreting the constitution, we must give effect and meaning to every provision and reconcile, if possible, apparently inconsistent provisions. Freed, 251 N.W.2d at 908. If we were to construe N.D. Const, art. IV, § 4, in a literal sense as absolutely prohibiting the Legislature, under any circumstances, from truncating the term of a senator to less than four years, the Legislature would be severely hampered in accomplishing its constitutional mandates to establish a redistricting plan giving every elector an equal vote and to elect one-half of the members of the senate biennially. Such a narrow interpretation of N.D. Const, art. IV, § 4, would preclude the Legislature from redrawing any boundary that would truncate an incumbent senator’s four-year term before its expiration. This could severely hamper the redistricting process.

[¶ 14] When the intentions of the people cannot be determined solely from the language of a constitutional provision itself, we may look to the historical context of an amendment and construe it in the light of contemporaneous history. Hagerty, 1998 ND 122, ¶ 17, 580 N.W.2d 139. This Court, in Meyer, found an overriding objective of the people and purpose under the constitution for allowing the Legislature to truncate terms in a redistricting plan:

[T]he purpose of the constitutional provisions on this subject which we have quoted was to maintain a Senate which should at all times have one-half its members, as nearly as practicable, experienced men.... To place a literal interpretation on the four-year provision as to the term of senators would classify some odd-numbered districts with some even-numbered districts, and interminable confusion and disorder would result.

Meyer, 20 N.D. at 632-33, 127 N.W. at 836.

[¶ 15] We do not believe the people intended to subvert this overriding objective by deleting the “except as hereinafter provided” language from N.D. Const, art. IV, § 4. The Legislature retains its constitutional mandates under N.D. Const, art. IV, §§ 2 and 3, to provide senatorial districts with equal votes for the electorate and to elect one-half of the senate members each biennium. Implicit in those mandates is the need for flexibility to truncate terms as necessary to the redistricting process.

[¶ 16] Faced with an identical issue under similar circumstances, the Washington Supreme Court in State ex rel. Christensen v. Hinkle, 169 Wash. 1, 13 P.2d 42, 44 (1932), cited and followed this Court’s decision in Meyer, even though the Washington state constitution required senators “shall be elected for four years,” but did not contain language similar to the “except as hereinafter provided” clause. The Washington Supreme Court concluded such language was unnecessary for it to follow the Meyer rationale in construing the Washington constitution. The Washington Supreme Court concluded its state constitution permitted the Legislature to truncate the terms of state senators as part of a constitutionally mandated redistricting plan:

We see no material difference in the language and legal effect of the two Constitutions. It follows, therefore, that in our view no constitutional right of the relator was invaded by Initiative Measure No. 57 when the term of office to which he had been previously elected was reduced from four to two years.

Hinkle, 13 P.2d at 44.

[¶ 17] We recognize N.D. Const, art. IV, § 4, establishes that senators must be elected for terms of four years. The mandates under N.D. Const, art. IV, §§ 2 and 3, however, require the Legislature to redraw districts after each decennial census to maintain elector vote equality, and to establish a procedure wherein one-half of the members of the senate are elected biennially, and they must be interpreted and harmonized with the provision for four-year senate terms under Section 4. In so doing, we construe the constitution as allowing the Legislature to truncate a senator’s four-year term when necessary to further the constitutional mandates for redistricting.

[¶ 18] It is a well-settled rule that we will not construe a statute or constitutional provision to reach an absurd result. See Bouchard v. Johnson, 555 N.W.2d 81, 83 (N.D.1996). When the Legislature establishes a redistricting plan to guarantee, as nearly as practicable, that every elector’s vote is equal, it will often have to redraw district boundaries to accommodate the changes and movement in population. If we construe N.D. Const, art. TV, § 4, to prohibit the Legislature from truncating any senator’s four-year term in its redistricting plan, it could not place the residences of two incumbent senators into one district; otherwise the redrawn district would have two senators until one of the senate terms expired. To avoid this, the Legislature would have to take into account the location of each incumbent senator’s residence and refrain from drawing lines that would place two incumbent senators in a single district. This interpretation would, in our view, lead to an absurd result. It would require the Legislature to draft district lines to accommodate incumbent senators’ housing locations to avoid having a district with double representation. We reject such an inflexible interpretation of N.D. Const, art. IV, § 4, as it relates to the Legislature’s authority in accomplishing its redistricting mandates under N.D. Const, art. IV, §§ 2 and 3.

[¶ 19] Construing all provisions of our state constitution together, we conclude that under N.D. Const, art. IV, § 4, a senator generally must be elected for a term of four years. However, the Legislature can truncate senate terms when reasonably necessary to accomplish another constitutional mandate.

Ill

[¶ 20] Section 54-03-01.8, N.D.C.C., provides there will be an election in 2002 in District 26, but gives one person the power to stop it.

However, if as a result of legislative redistricting a senator elected in 1998 is placed in an even-numbered district there must be an election in 2002 for a term of two years unless the senator elected in 1998 files by February 15, 2002, a written statement with the secretary of state stating that the senator elected in 1998 agrees that there need not be an election for a senator in 2002 and that the senator elected in 2000 may continue that senator’s term; based on this requirement, districts twenty and twenty-six may be required to elect senators in 2002.

(Emphasis added.) Giving an incumbent senator an opportunity to run immediately in an election in his new district simply advances the incumbent senator’s private interest, rather than a public interest. See Hinkle, 13 P.2d at 43. It provides no justification to override the constitutional mandate of four-year senate terms under N.D. Const, art. IV, § 4. The problem here is compounded in that the Legislature has placed in the hands of one person the authority to stop an election. For the reasons which follow, we conclude the above underscored language of N.D.C.C. § 54-03-01.8 is void as an impermissible delegation of legislative power.

[¶ 21] The Legislature has the power to administer the election process. N.D. Const. art. II, § 1; Dist. One Republican Comm. v. Dist. One Democrat Comm., 466 N.W.2d 820, 832 (N.D.1991); Miller v. Schallem, 8 N.D. 395, 400, 79 N.W. 865, 866 (1899). Except as otherwise provided in the constitution, the Legislature may not delegate legislative powers to others, MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Heitkamp, 523 N.W.2d 548, 554 (N.D.1994), including a subset of its members, Eklund v. Eklund, 538 N.W.2d 182, 189 (N.D.1995) (Sandstrom, J., concurring), or private citizens. Enderson v. Hildenbrand, 52 N.D. 533, 541, 204 N.W. 356, 359 (1925). In County of Stutsman v. State Historical Soc’y, 371 N.W.2d 321, 327 (N.D.1985), this Court explained:

Unless expressly authorized by the State Constitution, the Legislature may not delegate its purely legislative powers to any other body.... However, the Legislature may delegate powers which are not exclusively legislative and which the Legislature cannot conveniently do because of the detailed nature. Simply because the Legislature may have exercised a power does not mean that it must exercise that power. In Ralston Purina Company [v. Hagemeister, 188 N.W.2d 405 (N.D.1971) ], we pointed out that the true distinction between a dele-gable and non-delegable power was whether the power granted gives the authority to make a law or whether that power pertains only to the execution of a law which was enacted by the Legislature. The power to ascertain certain facts which will bring the provisions of a law into operation by its own terms is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative powers. Ferch v. Housing Authority of Cass County, 79 N.D. 764, 59 N.W.2d 849 (1953). However, the law must set forth reasonably clear guidelines to enable the appropriate body to ascertain the facts.

This Court has upheld legislative delegations of power when the law contains reasonable guidelines by which the person or body to whom a power is delegated may operate. See, e.g., MCI Telecomms. Corp., 523 N.W.2d at 555; North Dakota Council of Sch. Adm’rs v. Sinner, 458 N.W.2d 280, 285-86 (N.D.1990); Southern Valley Grain Dealers Ass’n v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 257 N.W.2d 425, 435 (N.D.1977). When reasonable guidelines are given, the delegated power to ascertain facts for operation of a law is not unconstitutional, because that power pertains to execution of the law. Syverson, Rath and Mehrer, P.C. v. Peterson, 495 N.W.2d 79, 82 (N.D.1993). Under our constitutional system, the Legislature may not delegate to itself, or to a subset of its members, executive or judicial functions. Eklund, 538 N.W.2d at 189 (Sandstrom, J., concurring).

[¶ 22] In Montana-Dakota Util. Co. v. Johanneson, 153 N.W.2d 414 (N.D.1967), the Legislature gave rural electric cooperatives the unfettered discretion to refuse consent for a public utility to extend its power lines into a rural area with rural electric cooperative lines or facilities. This Court concluded the legislation was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power:

[F]or all practical purposes, the co-operative, and not the Public Service Commission, is the body that determines whether a certifícate of public convenience and necessity shall be granted to a public utility in the area outside the limits of the municipality.
Under Section 3, the co-operative has this power regardless of whether it or the utility is best qualified to serve the area and regardless of the fact that the public utility applying to serve such area might more economically render such service. No guidelines are set out in the law to be followed by the co-operative in making such determination, and no safeguards are provided against arbitrary action by the co-operative.... The Legislature must declare the policy of the law and must definitely fix the legal principles which are to control the action taken.
If the Legislature had determined that the public utilities should serve only in urban areas, that would have been a legislative determination. But Section 3 of Chapter 319 presents a different situation. The Legislature itself does not determine who is to furnish electrical service in rural areas. It leaves that determination to the electric co-operative, and this clearly is an unlawful delegation of legislative authority.

Johanneson, 153 N.W.2d at 421.

[¶ 23] Here, too, we conclude the Legislature has unlawfully delegated its authority. As amended, N.D.C.C. § 54-03-01.8 gives unfettered discretion to a single person to stop an election for state senator in District 26 in 2002. We therefore hold the above underscored language of N.D.C.C. § 54-03-01.8 confers an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power and cannot stand. We strike this statutory language, and as a consequence, N.D.C.C. § 54-03-01.8 requires an election for state senator in District 26 in 2002.

IV

[¶ 24] The Legislature can truncate four-year state senator terms provided under N.D. Const, art. IV, § 4, when necessary to accomplish another constitutional mandate. However, the Legislature does not have unfettered authority to truncate terms during the redistricting process. This Court in Meyer held the constitutional provision requiring four-year terms could be overridden by the Legislature to further its constitutional mandate to stagger senate terms in establishing a redistricting plan to ensure that the senate maintains one-half of its number as experienced members. To withstand the constitutional attack here, N.D.C.C. § 54-03-01.8 must further some constitutional mandate or directive to justify its requirement that an election for state senator be held in 2002 in District 26, which results in truncating Kelsh’s senate term.

[¶ 25] District 26, as redrawn under the Legislature’s redistricting plan, is a substantially different district than former District 26. Currently, the population in District 26 is 14,327. The redistricting plan moved 4,509 individuals from former District 26 into new Districts 28 and 29. It also moved 6,676 individuals into current District 26 from former Districts 25 and 27. Consequently, the redistricting plan has resulted in a 46.6 percent change of the population from former District 26 compared to current District 26.

[¶ 26] Our state constitution requires: “A senator and at least two representatives must be apportioned to each senatorial district and be elected at large or from subdistricts from those districts.” N.D. Const, art. IV, § 2 (emphasis added). When a district undergoes a boundary change that results in a 46.6 percent change of the actual persons residing in the district, the question is whether the state senator elected by the district prior to the change can be considered to have been elected from the changed district.

[¶ 27] Addressing a similar question, the Alaska Supreme Court in Egan v. Hammond, 502 P.2d 856, 873-74 (Alaska 1972), held that the governor had the power to terminate senate terms as incidental to his general reapportionment powers and explained:

A need to truncate the terms of incumbents may arise when reapportionment results in a permanent change in district lines which either excludes substantial numbers of constituents previously represented by the incumbent or includes numerous other voters who did not have a voice in the selection of that incumbent.

[¶ 28] See also Kentopp v. Anchorage, 652 P.2d 453, 462 (Alaska 1982) (stating formulation of a reapportionment plan is a decidedly political process and the Legislature has discretion whether to truncate terms); In re Apportionment Law, 414 So.2d 1040, 1047 (Fla.1982) (holding election of state senators after redistricting resulting in truncation of terms was justified to accomplish state constitutional requirement that senators be elected from their districts).

[¶ 29] When reapportionment results in a substantial constituency change, the constitutional requirement that a senator be elected from a district may justify truncating an incumbent senator’s term to give the electorate in the newly drawn district an opportunity to select a senator from that district. The petition before us questions the constitutional validity of N.D.C.C. § 54-03-01.8 in requiring an election in District 26 and, thereby, truncating Kelsh’s four-year term. We do not address any aspect of the statute as it relates to other districts in the state for which no challenge is before us. An appellate court need not answer questions, the answers to which are unnecessary to resolve the case before it. See Moszer v. Witt, 2001 ND 30, ¶ 20, 622 N.W.2d 223.

[¶ 30] To resolve this case, we need not decide how significant the change in a district’s constituency must be to justify the legislative decision to have an election that would truncate the term of an incumbent senator. We need only decide whether the redrawing of the District 26 boundaries with a resulting 46.6 percent change of the district’s constituency justifies having an election in 2002, even though it truncates Kelsh’s term.

[¶ 31] Although not every change in a district will justify having an election, we conclude a constituency change of 46.6 percent does. Nearly one-half of the electors of District 26, as formulated under the 2001 redistricting plan, have never had an opportunity to elect a state senator from the district. The newly drawn district contains within its boundaries two incumbent state senators, and that situation further exacerbates the disenfranchisement caused by the redrawn boundaries. We hold that N.D.C.C. § 54-03-01.8, by allowing an election in District 26 in 2002, accomplishes the Legislature’s N.D. Const, art. IV, § 2, directive of establishing a redistricting plan under which a district’s state senator is elected from the district. Consequently, we hold the statute justifiably truncates Kelsh’s term and is not unconstitutional in violation of N.D. Const, art. IV, § 4.

V

[¶ 32] In accordance with this opinion, we hold the Legislature may truncate four-year senate terms as provided under N.D. Const, art. IV, § 4, when necessary to further a constitutional mandate or directive. We hold the language of N.D.C.C. § 54-03-01.8, placing in one person the decision whether District 26 elects a state senator in 2002, is void as an impermissible delegation of legislative power. We further hold N.D.C.C. § 54-03-01.8, by requiring an election in District 26, furthers the N.D. Const, art. IV, § 2, constitutional mandate that a state senator be elected from the district and does not violate N.D. Const, art. IV, § 4. We therefore deny the petitioner’s request for a writ of prohibition to enjoin the Secretary of State from holding a primary and general election in District 26 in 2002 for election of a state senator.

[¶ 33] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., DALE V. SANDSTROM, WILLIAM A. NEUMANN, MARY MUEHLEN MARING, and CAROL RONNING KAPSNER, JJ., concur.