concurring specially.
[¶ 16] This case is distinguishable from State v. Dalman, 520 N.W.2d 860 (N.D.1994) only because NDCC § 12.1-32-15(2) requires the court to inform the defendant of the need to register as a sex offender after a person has pled guilty to or been found guilty as a sex offender. But, in view of this provision, it cannot be contended Breiner would not have pled guilty had the trial court complied with section 12.1-32-15(2), NDCC, for the plea would have already been entered at the time the statute requires the court to inform the defendant of the registration requirement. I adhere to this court’s position in Dalman; to do otherwise is to open the veritable “can of worms” in that an unending list of arguments will be made comparable to the argument in Dalman that the trial court should have informed Dalman he could be deported because of his guilty plea. The plain wording of N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b) requires no such action by the court.
[¶ 17] It therefore is difficult to conclude the withdrawal of the plea is necessary to correct a “manifest injustice.” N.D.R.Crim.P 32(d)(1). It stretches the imagination to believe any innocent person would plead guilty, even with a mild sentence, to a crime of this nature, regardless of the registration requirement.
*569[¶ 18] Compare this case, where the charge involves a defendant, represented by counsel, who pled guilty to an offense involving a sexual act with a minor, with the decision in In re Birch 10 Cal.3d 314, 110 Cal.Rptr. 212, 515 P.2d 12 (1973), cited by the majority, wherein the California Supreme Court held the trial court should have informed a defendant who appeared in Municipal Court mth-out counsel his plea of guilty to a charge of lewd dissolute conduct in a public place required him to register as a sex offender. The conduct described in the opinion is the defendant “left the car and urinated while standing next to to [sic] the vehicle and facing a retaining wall which was approximately 40 feet from the restaurant.... ” 110 Cal.Rptr. at 213, 515 P.2d at 13. Significantly, the court “concluded that petitioner’s conviction must be set aside because the record does not reveal that Birch was properly advised prior to his plea either of his right to counsel or of the sex registration requirement flowing directly from a conviction....” Id.
[¶ 19] Nor do I believe the other California decisions cited by the majority are particularly persuasive on the issue of whether or not the trial court must advise the defendant of the registration requirement prior to a plea. People v. McClellan, 6 Cal.4th 367, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 739, 862 P.2d 739 (1993) disposed of the issue of whether the trial court must advise the defendant of the sex offender registration requirement by relying on Bunnell v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.3d 592, 119 Cal.Rptr. 302, 531 P.2d 1086 (1975). But, Bunnell was a murder case, the issue was double jeopardy and, in discussing the consequences of a plea of guilty, the Court held such things as advising defendant of right to counsel, right to a jury trial, right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and right against self-incrimination must appear on the record. The Court also stated the defendant must be “advised of the direct consequences of conviction such as the permissible range of punishment provided by statute, registration requirements, if any_” (Emphasis supplied.) 119 Cal.Rptr. at 310, 531 P.2d at 1094.
[¶ 20] Thus, in Bunnell the requirement to advise of the registration requirement as a direct consequence is dicta and is akin to what this Court now requires by rule. See Rule 11(b) N.D.R.Crim.P. Although McClellan relies on Bunnell to answer the question of whether the trial court must advise the defendant of the requirement to register as a sex offender, and Bunnell is dicta, McClellan is significant because there the California Supreme Court refused to allow the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. There the trial court failed to advise the defendant of that consequence of his plea, but the defendant waived his claim of error by “failing ... to interpose a timely objection to the registration requirement.” 24 Cal.Rptr.2d at 746, 862 P.2d at 746. McClellan’s counsel was aware at the time of sentencing of a probation officer’s report recommending he be ordered to register as a sex offender and the trial court did formally impose the registration requirement at sentencing. The California Supreme Court observed the record did not establish the failure to advise of the registration requirement prejudiced the defendant because the record contained only the defendant’s assertion in the notice of appeal from the conviction that he would not have pled guilty if he had been so advised. The Court also noted the prosecution had no opportunity to contest the defendant’s assertion and the trial court had no occasion to pass upon the veracity of the defendant’s assertion. Relying on the defendant’s failure to object at the time of sentencing, the Supreme Court not only refused to allow the defendant to withdraw his plea, it refused to remand for a hearing on the motion to "withdraw the plea. If the defendant had objected at the time of sentencing when the registration requirement was imposed, it appears the California Supreme Court would have required the defendant be able to withdraw his plea.
[¶ 21] I continue to adhere to our holding in Dalman. Yet, here section 12.1-32-15(2) does require the court to impose the registration requirement after a plea or conviction and to state the requirement on the court record. That did not happen in this case.1 *570Thus, I concur in the result because it is conceivable, if not probable as McClellan suggests, that had the trial court informed Breiner of the registration requirement at the time of sentence Breiner would have moved immediately to withdraw his guilty plea. In that event it is also probable the trial court would not only have found the motion timely but found it was for a “fair and just reason” under N.D.R.CrimJP 82(d)(3) as opposed to the more serious burden of “correct[ing] a manifest injustice” under subdivision (1) of that Rule. That can only be determined after an evidentiary hearing on whether Bremer knew of the requirement to register when he pled guilty.
[¶ 22] VANDE WALLE, C.J. NEUMANN, Justice,dissenting.
[¶ 23] For some reason, never explained, the majority assumes N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15(2) imposes a requirement upon the defendant to register as a sex offender. It does not. By its plain, unambiguous language, the section imposes a requirement on the court to require the defendant to register. The court did not do that. If the trial court had imposed the registration requirement without first warning the defendant, I could understand — though I might not agree with— the majority’s opinion. But the facts of this case are that neither the statute nor the court imposed a registration requirement on Bremer. He therefore complains of a consequence that does not apply to him. I would affirm.
[¶24] NEUMANN, J. SANDSTROM, Justice,dissenting.
[¶ 25] Because I would follow the majority of states, I dissent from the position of the majority of this Court. Contrary to the assertion of the majority opinion, no “manifest injustice” arises from the failure of the trial court to advise the defendant at the time of sentencing of his duty to register as a sexual offender.
[¶ 26] Even the majority of this Court, at ¶ 7, concedes “[Registration as a sexual offender is a collateral, not a direct, consequence of a conviction.” Trial courts have no duty to advise defendants of collateral consequences of a guilty plea. State v. Dalman, 520 N.W.2d 860, 863 (N.D.1994).
[¶27] The trial court’s statutory duty to advise the defendant of the duty to register as a sexual offender specifically attaches after, not before, a guilty plea or verdict. N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15(2). When, as here, the purpose of advising the defendant is not to benefit the defendant but to promote compliance with the law, the defendant is not exempted from compliance with the law and may not complain of a procedural irregularity. See State v. Sundquist, 542 N.W.2d 90 (N.D.1996) (Because the purpose of the stalking law’s requirement of serving a copy of the law on the defendant was to protect the victim, not the defendant, the defendant could not complain of non-compliance). Here the trial court’s duty was imposed to protect the public, not the defendant, and thus the defendant should have no cause to complain.
[¶ 28] I specifically reject the majority opinion’s adoption, at ¶8, of the minority view expressed by California courts of the “onerous nature of the sex[-offender] registration requirement that follows inexorably from a conviction.” Birch at 216. The defendant’s conviction of a sex crime is a matter of public record without the registration requirement. I agree with the majority of states; requiring sex offenders to advise law enforcement of their whereabouts is remedial, protective, and a'minimal burden. See, e.g., State v. Manning, 532 N.W.2d 244, 248-49 (Minn.App.1995).
[¶ 29] I would affirm.
[¶ 30] NEUMANN, J., concurs.
. Neither Breiner nor the State argued Breiner is not required to register in light of the trial *570court’s failure to "impose, in addition to any penally provided by law" the registration requirement as specified in NDCC § 12.1-32-15(2). Because the issue has not been raised, I would not decide it.