Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

James Dubois, Jr. appealed an order denying his application for post-conviction relief, arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel, his plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent, and his sentence was illegal. In August 2017, Dubois pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal trespass and one count of refusal to halt. Dubois was sentenced to 18 months with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, first to serve 90 days with the balance suspended for 18 months of supervised probation. Probation was ultimately revoked and he was resentenced to five years in prison. Dubois filed a direct appeal where he argued the district court abused its discretion in revoking his probation, and that the court’s new sentence was illegal because it exceeded his original sentence. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, finding the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation and resentencing. Dubois then filed for post-conviction relief at issue here, arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Dubois claimed his counsel failed to object to the illegal sentence and did not explain to Dubois that probation revocation could result in him being resentenced to five years. A majority of the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, thereby overruling North Dakota v. Gefroh, 458 N.W.2d 479 (N.D. 1990), which allowed district courts to resentence defendants on probation revocation to any sentence initially available, and did not limit the new sentence to no more than that which was suspended. View "Dubois v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Michael Boger appealed after entering a conditional guilty plea to driving under the influence, a third offense in seven years. Boger argued the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because video evidence conclusively showed the violation alleged to be the reason for the traffic stop did not occur. The officer testified the rear license plate was not illuminated when he first observed Boger’s vehicle, was not illuminated when he was following Boger’s vehicle, and the license plate illumination light was not functioning during the traffic stop. During cross-examination, the officer’s body-worn camera video was entered into evidence. Boger argued the video clearly showed the license plate illumination light was functioning. The officer gave his opinion that the plate appeared illuminated on the body-worn camera video, not because the license plate illumination light was on, but because of multiple lights shining onto the plate, such as the lights from the adjacent gas station, the headlights on the patrol vehicle, the red and blue lights on the patrol vehicle, and the spotlight on the patrol vehicle. The State responded to Boger's argument on appeal, arguing itself that the arresting officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion of a traffic violation or, in the alternative, the officer initiated the stop as the result of an objectively reasonable mistake of fact. The North Dakota Supreme Court found that the video recorded by the officer’s body-worn camera stood in direct conflict with his testimony: "Every time the light comes into the frame of the video it is bright, clear, and continuously illuminated." The Court found the unambiguous testimony of the officer was that the stop was initiated because the license plate was not illuminated without a single reference to the legibility of the license plate. Therefore, the Court concluded the testimony was insufficient to support the court’s finding that the officer’s testimony established the rear license plate was not legible or that the officer initiated the traffic stop for any reason other than the rear license plate not being illuminated. The Court reversed and remanded this case to allow Boger to withdraw his conditional guilty plea. View "North Dakota v. Boger" on Justia Law

Brett Lyman appealed after a jury found him guilty of driving with a blood-alcohol content greater than .08%. He argued the district court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence his blood test results without the State first establishing his blood sample had been collected using the approved method for collecting a blood specimen. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Lyman" on Justia Law

Thomas Pinkney appealed a district court order granting summary dismissal of his post-conviction relief application. In 2015, Pinkney pleaded guilty to gross sexual imposition, a class A felony, and was sentenced. He subsequently filed for post-conviction relief on two occasions, in addition to filing multiple motions in his criminal case, which were denied. In April 2020, Pinkney filed the underlying application for post-conviction relief in the district court, alleging as grounds for relief: newly discovered evidence-DNA testing, actual innocence, and incompetence to plead guilty. In his application Pinkney requested to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to a jury trial. The court scheduled a hearing on his application for July 24, 2020. The State answered opposing his application and moved the court for summary dismissal of his application. The district court subsequently entered orders denying his motion for continuance and granting the State’s motion for summary dismissal. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded after the trial court record, Pinkney failed to meet his minimal burden to provide at least some competent evidence to support his claims in response to the State’s summary dismissal motion. "Instead, his filings merely suggest that his investigation is ongoing, particularly regarding his mental competence to plead guilty. Pinkney has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact. We therefore conclude the district court did not err in granting the State’s motion for summary disposition." View "Pinkney v. North Dakota" on Justia Law