Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Yaasin Isxaaq appealed a district court order denying his applications for post-conviction relief, in which he sought to withdraw his guilty pleas in three underlying criminal cases. Isxaaq was charged with theft in June 2016, and pleaded guilty to an amended charge of disorderly conduct later that month. Isxaaq was later charged with misdemeanor sexual assault in February 2017 and pleaded guilty in March 2017. Isxaaq was then charged with misdemeanor theft, and pleaded guilty in January 2020. All three charges were class B misdemeanors. Isxaaq was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), pending deportation proceedings, on January 29, 2020. In all three cases, Isxaaq argued his guilty pleas were not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily made because he had not been properly advised on adverse immigration consequences, and because an interpreter was not used when he communicated with his attorneys. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in denying Isxaaq’s applications for post-conviction relief. View "Isxaaq v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Dennis Roehrich appealed after a jury found him guilty of harassment. In May 2019, the City of Fargo charged Roehrich with harassment, alleging Roehrich made numerous vulgar and harassing telephone calls and left similarly offensive voicemail messages for several members of the Fargo Police Department over a two-year period and continued contacting members of the police department after receiving a cease and desist letter. Roerich argued on appeal his conviction should have been reversed because Fargo’s harassment ordinance, Fargo Municipal Code section 10-0322, was unconstitutionally vague and his speech was protected by the First Amendment. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the harassment ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague and Roehrich’s conduct was not protected. View "City of Fargo v. Roehrich" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order granting Elizabeth Cochran’s motion to suppress evidence. The State argued the court erred in finding that a room used by Cochran, in a residence she shared with her son, was not a common area within the scope of a warrantless probationary search of the residence. The State also argued Cochran forfeited the opportunity to seek suppression of evidence obtained from the room by failing to object at the time of the search. Furthermore, the State argued the Court misapplied the law by requiring the State to establish the reason for the underlying probationary search. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the court’s order suppressing the evidence discovered during the search of the room. View "North Dakota v. Cochran" on Justia Law

Michael Stands was convicted by jury of possession with intent to manufacture or distribute methamphetamine. Stands argued on appeal he was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the North Dakota Constitution, his hotel room was entered in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and all evidence obtained had to be suppressed under the exclusionary rule. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Stands' conviction. View "North Dakota v. Stands" on Justia Law

North Dakota petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and issue a writ of supervision directing the district court to vacate certain orders allowing representation during a presentence investigation (PSI) related evaluation. Anthony Boldt pled guilty to three counts of incest. The district court issued an order for presentence investigation and sentencing hearing notice. The court also directed “that a Pre-sentence Report, including a psycho-sexual evaluation be prepared in this matter, prior to sentencing, by the Department of Parole and Probation.” The Department of Human Services received a referral from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation triggering the secondary process of a risk assessment to be conducted during a presentence investigation. Defense counsel was informed the Department would not allow counsel to be present during the evaluation. The district court then ordered defense counsel be allowed to be present during the evaluation and any interviews relating to the pre-sentence investigation. The State argued the defendant had no Sixth Amendment right to have counsel present. The Supreme Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction and vacated those portions of the district court’s orders which directed the Department of Human Services (the Department) to permit Boldt’s counsel to be present, and advise Boldt during psycho-sexual evaluation. View "North Dakota v. Schmidt, et al." on Justia Law

Travis Yoney appealed a district court order summarily dismissing his application for postconviction relief. He argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney’s proposed jury instructions for attempted murder included the culpability of “knowingly,” which Yoney claimed was a non-cognizable offense. The North Dakota Supreme Court recently held in Pemberton v. North Dakota, 959 N.W.2d 891, that attempted knowing murder was not a cognizable offense. The Court found Yoney failed to demonstrate he received ineffective assistance of counsel. However, on the basis of Pemberton, the Court reversed the order and remanded with instructions to vacate Yoney’s attempted murder conviction. View "Yoney v. North Dakota" on Justia Law