Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The State of North Dakota appealed an amended judgment entered after the district court modified Bradley Neilan’s sentence under North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b). In 2019, Neilan was arrested for possession of marijuana with the intent to deliver. On February 9, 2021, the parties appeared at a change of plea hearing. At the hearing, the State detailed a plea agreement in which it dropped the firearm enhancements from Neilan’s charges, removing the mandatory minimum sentences. The plea agreement provided that Neilan would be incarcerated for four years with all but 18 months suspended. At the hearing, in response to the district court inquiry as to why the State was seeking incarceration rather than probation, the State indicated that if the plea agreement was rejected the State would withdraw the proposed amendments and pursue the mandatory minimum sentencing. Neilan confirmed his preference to accept the plea agreement. The court, noting the State was giving it “zero option,” accepted the agreement and stated it would sentence Neilan to its terms. The day following the district court's accepting the plea agreement, the court signed and entered a judgment consistent with the terms of the plea agreement. Later that day, the court initiated its own N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(b) motion to consider reducing the sentence from incarceration to probation. On appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court, the State argued the court was precluded from modifying a sentence imposed pursuant to a plea agreement or, in the alternative, the court abused its discretion by modifying the sentence. Neilan challenged the State’s right to appeal. The Supreme Court concluded the court’s reduction of Neilan’s sentence was appealable, the plain language of N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(b) provided the court with the authority to exercise its discretion in reducing a sentence, and, in this case, the court abused its discretion in reducing Neilan’s sentence. However, as mandated by N.D.C.C. 29-28-35, the Supreme Court's opinion was limited to affirming the sentence imposed by the court and pointing out the error in the proceeding. The Court, accordingly, affirmed the amended judgment. View "North Dakota v. Neilan" on Justia Law

Michael Jon McCreary appealed after a jury found him guilty of aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon. On April 6, 2019, McCreary was attending an event at a hotel in Williston, North Dakota. J.P., the victim, was working as a security guard for the hotel. During the course of the night, McCreary was involved in an altercation with another guest behind the hotel. At one point, J.P.’s attention was drawn away from McCreary. When J.P. turned back, McCreary swung a “cylinder object” and struck J.P. in the forehead. J.P. described the object as “something very similar to a Maglite” although he “didn’t see the head of the flashlight itself.” Photographs were introduced showing a large, dark-colored flashlight “approximately one foot in length” attached to a holster on McCreary’s hip earlier in the night. On appeal, McCreary contended the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, arguing the flashlight used in the assault was not a “dangerous weapon” as defined by N.D.C.C. 12.1-01-04(6). The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding a flashlight could be considered a dangerous weapon under N.D.C.C. 12.1-01- 04(6), and sufficient evidence supported McCreary’s conviction. View "North Dakota v. McCreary" on Justia Law

Lorry Van Chase appealed a district court order summarily denying his application for postconviction relief. In 2014, a jury convicted Chase of gross sexual imposition. He appealed and the conviction was affirmed. In March 2020, Chase filed a third application for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence. The State answered the application, and requested summary dismissal within its answer. The district court scheduled oral argument on the application. No response to the request for summary dismissal was filed by Chase. After oral argument, the court summarily denied the application for postconviction relief. Chase argued the district court erred by summarily denying his application without requiring the State to file a motion for summary disposition. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in treating the State’s answer as the motion required by statute and rule, and overruled Delvo v. North Dakota, 782 N.W.2d 72, and Chisholm v. North Dakota, 937 N.W.2d 520, which had allowed the State to request summary disposition in its answer. Accordingly, judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Chase v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order dismissing a felony charge of unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia for lack of probable cause. The State charged Dylan Nupdal with unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia (a class C felony), among other offenses. The State argued the court erred in concluding a scale only alleged to have been used to weigh and package methamphetamine into smaller quantities did not satisfy the statutory element requiring use or intent to use the scale to produce or prepare methamphetamine. The State asserted the scale was used, or possessed with intent to be used, to produce or prepare methamphetamine. Under the plain language of the statute, a person was guilty of a class C felony if the drug paraphernalia is used, or possessed with intent to be used, in eight enumerated ways. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined these eight prohibited uses did not include using, or possessing with an intent to use, drug paraphernalia to weigh a controlled substance, which was what was alleged by the State, and ultimately found by the district court. "The definition section, N.D.C.C. 19-03.4-01, supports this interpretation, providing that drug paraphernalia includes kits, blenders, bowls, containers, spoons, grinders, and mixing devices used in producing or preparing controlled substances, N.D.C.C. sections 19-03.4-01(2), (8), and scales and balances used in weighing or measuring controlled substances, N.D.C.C. section 19-03.4-01(5). This section implicitly recognizes scales are used to weigh or measure controlled substances when categorized as drug paraphernalia." Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in concluding the State failed to establish probable cause of Nupdal unlawfully possessing drug paraphernalia, and dismissing the felony charge. View "North Dakota v. Nupdal" on Justia Law

Michael Brewer appealed his sentence on charges of terrorizing, simple assault on a peace officer, preventing arrest, disarming or attempting to disarm a law enforcement officer, simple assault, and criminal mischief. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with all but 18 months suspended and crediting him with 157 days of time served. On appeal, Brewer argued the district court erred in calculating his time served and he is entitled to 419 days’ credit for time served. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Brewer" on Justia Law

Russell Craig appealed the summary dismissal of his motion for postconviction relief based on res judicata. Craig pleaded guilty to murder in 2007 and was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. Craig initiated a postconviction proceeding in 2013, which was summarily dismissed. In 2018, in the underlying criminal case, Craig filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The district court denied the motion, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. Craig filed another application for postconviction relief in October 2020, arguing his parole date was moved in violation of ex post facto law. The State answered, denying Craig’s allegations and raising the affirmative defense of res judicata. The State moved for summary disposition arguing Craig’s claims were barred by res judicata. Craig argued his claims were not barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court concluded Craig’s claims were barred by res judicata, and affirmed the judgment. View "Craig v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Wyatt Kukert appealed a district court judgment entered after he conditionally pled guilty to gross sexual imposition. Kukert argued on appeal that the trial court erred by denying his motions to dismiss and suppress. Kukert claimed he did not voluntarily waive his Miranda rights, and his statements to law enforcement were not corroborated by other evidence of sexual contact. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Kukert" on Justia Law

James Kremer appealed dismissing his application for postconviction relief. In February 2016, Kremer pled guilty to three counts of possession of certain materials prohibited. He filed an appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court, but he later withdrew his appeal. In July 2018, Kremer filed his first application for postconviction relief, arguing that “he received ineffective assistance of counsel and the court ‘did not inform [him] of the possibility of restitution, did not ensure that [his] plea was voluntary, did not obtain a factual basis for the plea, and did not get any acknowledgement by [Kremer] regarding the facts.’” The district court denied relief, and the Supreme Court affirmed. In January 2021, Kremer filed a second application for postconviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel, actual innocence, prosecutorial misconduct, invalid guilty plea, and an illegal search and seizure leading to his conviction. The State moved to dismiss, arguing that his application for postconviction relief was untimely and that his claims were further barred by res judicata. The district court granted the State’s motion and summarily denied his application. The Supreme Court affirmed the order, concluding Kremer’s claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations. View "Kremer v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Benjamin Suelzle was convicted by jury on one count of being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence, and one count of refusal to submit to blood alcohol testing. On appeal, Suelzle argued the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges because the federal law enforcement officer who stopped his vehicle lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion that Suelzle had violated or was about to violate the law, and was without authority to detain him for the purpose of waiting for a McKenzie County law enforcement officer to arrive at the scene. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Suelzle" on Justia Law

A.S. appealed a juvenile court's judgment and order terminating her parental rights to her child, A.S.F. A.S. was appointed counsel when the State petitioned for involuntary termination of her parental rights. The trial court allowed A.S.’s counsel to withdraw after A.S. expressed dissatisfaction with her counsel. The termination hearing was continued and new counsel was appointed. One day before the rescheduled hearing, A.S.’s second counsel moved to withdraw. The judge heard the motion at the termination hearing. There, counsel stated a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship had occurred. The court granted counsel’s motion on the basis of the treatment A.S. showed to her counsel and the unwillingness of A.S. to work with any attorney the court appointed. The judge found A.S.’s actions to be a voluntary waiver of her right to counsel. Counsel was allowed to leave the courtroom. The hearing proceeded with A.S. without counsel. The juvenile court entered an order terminating parental rights on June 10, 2021. A.S. appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court 61 days after the initial June 10 order terminating her parental rights was entered. A.S. argues her right to counsel was violated after the court granted her second attorney’s motion to withdraw, leaving A.S. to represent herself at the termination hearing and without advice regarding the process and deadline for appeal. The Supreme Court determined it lacked jurisdiction even to consider a claim that a party failed to timely appeal as a result of a denial of the party’s right to counsel. "We are without jurisdiction to hear A.S.’s waiver of her right to counsel argument because her appeal was untimely." View "Interest of A.S.F." on Justia Law