Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

LeRoy Wheeler appealed a district court order denying his applications for postconviction relief. In 2005, Wheeler was convicted of gross sexual imposition, encouraging the deprivation of a minor, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Wheeler was subject to an order prohibiting him from filing new postconviction relief applications without leave of court. The North Dakota Supreme Court treated the district court’s order as one denying Wheeler leave to file new applications. Orders denying leave to file were not appealable, and the appeal was dismissed. View "Wheeler v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Alfredo Deleon, Jr. appealed his conviction for possession of certain materials prohibited. In February 2020, Deleon was charged with one count gross sexual imposition, and one count of possession of certain materials prohibited. After a three-day jury trial, he was convicted on both counts. On appeal, Deleon challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him. Finding sufficient evidence supported Deleon’s conviction, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Deleon" on Justia Law

Dylan Marsolek appealed a criminal judgment entered after he conditionally pled guilty to possession of controlled substances and drug paraphernalia. Marsolek, a passenger in a vehicle involved in a traffic stop, argued he was unlawfully seized because the officers prolonged the traffic stop beyond the time necessary to issue a traffic citation. He argued the evidence resulting from the traffic stop should have been excluded because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to expand the scope of the traffic stop into a drug investigation. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the district court did not err in denying Marsolek’s motion to suppress evidence because the officer had reasonable suspicion to justify prolonging the traffic stop. View "North Dakota v. Marsolek" on Justia Law

Bonnie Lynn Nygaard appealed after her conditional plea to refusing to take a chemical breath test was accepted. In the early morning of March 8, 2020, Stutsman County Sheriff Deputy Brian Davis conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle driven by Nygaard. Davis asked for Nygaard’s license, proof of insurance and vehicle registration. After receiving the documents, Davis asked Nygaard if she had been drinking. Nygaard said she had two drinks an hour prior to the traffic stop. Nygaard would be taken to the Stutsman County Correctional Center. Nygaard was given an implied consent advisory and requested a chemical breath test. Nygaard consented to taking the test. During the first breath sample, Nygaard obstructed the air flow and provided an insufficient sample. Nygaard was told she could take the test a second time but if a sufficient sample was not provided, a citation would issue for DUI-Refusal. Nygaard agreed to take the second test and again provided an insufficient sample. The City of Jamestown charged Nygaard with DUI-Refusal. Nygaard argued on appeal that the plain meaning of N.D.C.C. 39-08-01(1)(f) required advice of criminal penalties to drivers before they could be charged with refusing a chemical breath test. The North Dakota Supreme Court found the plain language of N.D.C.C. 39-08-01(1)(f) did not require advice of criminal penalties to drivers before they can be charged with refusing a chemical breath test. The criminal judgment was thus affirmed. View "City of Jamestown v. Nygaard" on Justia Law

Ross Thomas appeals from a district court order denying his application for postconviction relief. In 2017, the State charged Thomas with felonious restraint, terrorizing, aggravated assault, and reckless endangerment. A jury found Thomas guilty of terrorizing, not guilty of aggravated assault and reckless endangerment, and did not reach a verdict on felonious restraint. Thomas appealed the terrorizing conviction. This Court reversed and remanded, concluding the district court erred in failing to conduct a hearing relating to juror misconduct. On remand, the State retried Thomas on the felonious restraint charge. The jury found Thomas guilty, and the district court sentenced him to ten years in prison. In July 2020, Thomas applied for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. He alleged his trial attorney failed to request a self-defense instruction, failed to obtain and offer video evidence, failed to call certain witnesses and failed to argue against double jeopardy. Finding no grounds upon which to grant relief, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the order denying postconviction relief. View "Thomas v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Cruz Muscha appealed a district court order denying his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. On appeal, Muscha argued the district court’s factual basis was insufficient to legally conclude he met the substantive due process requirement of serious difficulty controlling his behavior. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Matter of Muscha" on Justia Law

Darin Johnson appealed after a jury found him guilty of terrorizing under N.D.C.C. 12.1-17-04. The North Dakota Supreme Court rejected Johnson’s invitation to create an exception to N.D.C.C. 12.1-17-04 when the unlawful conduct is directed toward a law enforcement officer, and concluded that sufficient evidence supported Johnson’s conviction. View "North Dakota v. Johnson" on Justia Law