Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Christopher Vickerman was convicted by jury of a class AA felony murder. Vickerman argued on appeal that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to warrant a conviction; (2) the district court abused its discretion in admitting hearsay statements of the victim; (3) he was denied his right to confront a witness; (4) the trial judge demonstrated impermissible bias during sentencing; and (5) the court imposed an improper sentence of a term of years exceeding his life expectancy when the maximum sentence of life without parole requires the calculation of his life expectancy. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing. View "North Dakota v. Vickerman" on Justia Law

Jason Vogt appealed the dismissal of his application for post-conviction relief. He pled guilty to gross sexual imposition. Here, Vogt claimed he was innocent and his counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Further, he contended his guilty plea was made involuntarily, and his confession was coerced. Vogt presented a psychological assessment that he claimed was newly discovered evidence. The assessment was prepared after his application for relief was filed, and opined Vogt may have involuntarily waived his rights and falsely confessed. Appealing the dismissal to the North Dakota Supreme Court, Vogt argued the State waived its affirmative defenses and its motion for dismissal was untimely. Finding no reversible error, however, the Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of Vogt’s application for relief. View "Vogt v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Dustin Lyman was convicted by jury of driving while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor. On appeal, Lyman argued the district court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial, claiming the State’s opening statement constituted prosecutorial misconduct and violated his rights to a fair trial. Finding no such misconduct, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court judgment. View "North Dakota v. Lyman" on Justia Law

In October 2018, Robert Pulkrabek was charged with driving under the influence, resisting arrest, and driving under suspension. In July 2020, he was charged with driving under suspension and failure to transfer title. In November 2020, he was charged with three counts of issuing checks without sufficient funds. In March 2021, he was charged with two counts of terrorizing. On June 1, 2021, Pulkrabek filed a request for final disposition of the pending charges within 90 days under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 29-33. If not waived or extended, the 90 day deadline expired on August 30, 2021. At the first status conference in June 2021, the district court allowed Pulkrabek’s attorney to withdraw. The court then discussed the timeline for trials with Pulkrabek and told Pulkrabek he would be assigned new counsel. The court advised Pulkrabek he was entitled to trials within 90 days but asked if he was comfortable with the trial dates already scheduled in three of the cases. Pulkrabek responded “yes” and stated “I’m comfortable with those dates.” Trials were set for October 6 and 8, 2021. A second attorney was appointed a week after the first withdrew; a continuance was granted. Due to transportation problems, Pulkrabek was unable to attend the preliminary hearing, so it was rescheduled for October 7, 2021. Pulkrabek’s second attorney moved to withdraw from the representation on September 27, 2021. At an October 2021 status conference, the district court granted the withdrawal and stated the trials and preliminary hearing would be rescheduled due to a third attorney assignment. The court advised Pulkrabek that would be the final time trials were continued. Pulkrabek told the court he was filing a motion to dismiss his pending cases. Days later, a third attorney was appointed to represent Pulkrabek. On October 15, Pulkrabek moved to dismiss the charges against me for expiration of the 90 day deadline. When that was denied, Pulkrabek subsequently entered into a global plea agreement covering all cases and pleaded guilty to the charges. On appeal of his convictions Pulkrabek argued district court committed a structural error by violating his right to counsel when asking Pulkrabek whether he agreed to trial dates outside the 90 day window in the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Pulkrabek" on Justia Law

Salamah Pendleton was convicted by jury on two counts of murder, two counts of attempted murder, terrorizing, reckless endangerment, and possession with intent to deliver marijuana. Pendleton argued on appeal: (1) his constitutional right to a public trial was violated; (2) his right to be physically present at trial was violated; (3) he was convicted of a non-cognizable offense; (4) juror misconduct occurred that violated his right to confrontation and an impartial jury; and (5) the court erred by not applying the ameliorating legislation of N.D.C.C. § 19.03.1-23, reducing possession with intent to deliver marijuana to a Class C felony. Finding only that the trial court miscalculated Pendleton’s sentence, the North Dakota affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing. View "North Dakota v. Pendleton" on Justia Law

Northwest Landowners Association filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of North Dakota Senate Bill 2344, which related to subsurface pore space. The district court granted the Association’s cross-motion for summary judgment, concluding S.B. 2344 was unconstitutional under the state and federal takings clauses. The State and Continental Resources appealed the district court’s summary judgment order and amended judgment. On appeal, the State argued S.B. 2344 did not violate the takings clauses and did not constitute an unconstitutional gift, and that the district court misapplied N.D.R. Civ.P. 56 by failing to consider evidence submitted by the State. Continental Resources argued the court erred in analyzing the Association’s facial challenge, in determining pore space had value as a matter of law, and in denying Rule 56(f) discovery. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in invalidating the entirety of S.B. 2344. The trial court’s judgment was affirmed to the extent that it declared certain portions unconstitutional, but reversed to the extent it declared the remainder of the bill inseparable and invalid. View "Northwest Landowners Association v. State, et al." on Justia Law

Milford Netterville appealed the revocation of his probation, and his resentencing to two years’ imprisonment. In 2020, Netterville pled guilty to domestic violence, for which he was originally sentenced to 366 days’ imprisonment with credit for 99, and 18 months of supervised probation. In 2021, the State petitioned to revoke probation when Netterville failed to report to his probation officer in October and November 2021. He argued the district court entered an illegal order because the court failed to give him credit for time served and there was ambiguity in the court’s sentence. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the revocation did not take into account the credit for time served. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded with instructions for resentencing. View "North Dakota v. Netterville" on Justia Law

Robert Bolinske appealed the dismissal of his claims against former Supreme Court Justice Dale Sandstrom and former District Court Judge Gail Hagerty (“State Defendants”) and awarding them attorney’s fees. In October 2016, Bolinske alleged in a press release that the State Defendants conspired to misfile or hide a petition for supervisory writ that he submitted in a prior case and thus tampered with public records. A few days after this press release, Rob Port published an article on his “Say Anything” blog regarding Bolinske’s press release. The article stated Port contacted Sandstrom and quoted Sandstrom as having said Bolinske’s press release was “bizarre and rather sad” and that “[a]lthough I’ve been aware of his mental health problems for years, I don’t recall ever having seen anything in his email before.” Three days after the article was published, Hagerty filed a grievance complaint against Bolinske, alleging he violated the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct. Based on the complaint, a disciplinary action was brought against Bolinske. The Inquiry Committee found Bolinske violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and issued him an admonition. The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court affirmed, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding his procedural due process rights were not violated. The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of Bolinske’s complaint in part, concluding the district court properly dismissed Bolinske’s claims of procedural and substantive due process, civil conspiracy, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, governmental bad faith, and tortious outrage. The Supreme Court reversed in part, concluding the district court erred by dismissing the defamation claim under the statute of limitations. The award of attorney’s fees was vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Bolinske v. Sandstrom, et al." on Justia Law

John Bridges appealed district court orders and judgments granting the State’s motions for summary judgment and denying Bridges’ applications for postconviction relief as untimely, barred by misuse of process and res judicata, and for lack of genuine issues of material fact. Bridges was convicted following guilty pleas to murder and kidnapping in 2012 and attempted murder in 2013. He did not appeal either conviction. Bridges previously applied for postconviction relief. Bridges argues summary disposition of his applications was inappropriate and he was entitled to evidentiary hearings in each case. Finding no reversible error however, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court orders. View "Bridges v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Richard Anderson appealed an order denying his motion challenging the constitutionality of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(4)(r) and seeking modification of his probation conditions. He argued the probation condition restricting his internet access violated his constitutional rights. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Anderson’s as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of the statute was not ripe for review. View "North Dakota v. Anderson" on Justia Law