Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Dylan Vetter appealed after he entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of controlled substances and drug paraphernalia. Vetter argued the deputy sheriff who stopped him for speeding lacked reasonable suspicion to believe Vetter’s car contained contraband and unlawfully expanded the scope of the traffic stop by inquiring whether there were any illegal items in Vetter’s vehicle and by conducting a canine sniff around the car. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in denying Vetter’s motion to suppress evidence because the stop was not expanded in violation of the Fourth Amendment. View "North Dakota v. Vetter" on Justia Law

Randy Jensen appeals from a district court order denying and dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. In June 2016, Jensen resolved three criminal cases by pleading guilty to several charges pursuant to a plea agreement under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(c), and several charges were dismissed. In July 2016, Jensen appealed the criminal judgments and was assigned court-appointed counsel. In September 2016, Jensen’s court-appointed counsel filed a stipulation to withdraw and dismiss the appeals, signed by Jensen and his court-appointed counsel. In October 2016, Jensen, through counsel, filed a motion for reduction of sentence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(b) in each case. The district court denied his motions. In November 2016, Jensen filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea in each case. The court denied his motions. In December 2016, Jensen filed an amended motion in each case to withdraw his guilty pleas under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(d). In February 2017, the court denied his motions following a hearing. In April 2017, Jensen, pro se, filed a motion for credit for time served. The court denied his motion. After the court issued its order denying his motion, court-appointed counsel requested and was granted a hearing to address Jensen’s motion for credit for time served. Following that hearing, the court again denied his motion for credit for time served. In March 2018, Jensen, pro se, applied for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel as his only ground for relief. The State moved to dismiss based on res judicata and misuse of process. The State’s motion was granted. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order denying Jensen’s application for post-conviction relief. View "Jensen v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Russell Craig appealed a district court order and amended order denying his motion to withdraw his 2007 guilty plea on murder charges. In August 2018, Craig filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(d)(2) and requested oral argument. The State did not respond. In September 2018, the district court issued a notice inquiring whether the State’s failure to respond to Craig’s motion was due to oversight. In that notice, the court also stated: “[t]he State shall notify the Court if it has waived a response or respond immediately to the motion or request additional time to respond if unable to do so immediately.” The court scheduled the oral argument for October 16, 2018. On October 5, 2018, the State filed a motion for extension of response time. The court granted the extension on October 11, 2018, and the State submitted its response to Craig’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea on October 12, 2018. Without explanation, the court cancelled the October 16, 2018 hearing. On October 24, 2018, the court denied Craig’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order, finding the lower court abused its discretion by failing to give a reason for dismissing Craig’s complaint without hearing. The matter was remanded for that hearing. View "North Dakota v. Craig" on Justia Law

Javonne Hunt appealed a district court order requiring him to pay $27,501.86 in restitution to Blue Cross Blue Shield (“BCBS”). In 2017, Hunt was playing basketball at the YMCA in Bismarck, North Dakota when he was involved in an altercation with an opposing player. Hunt intentionally struck the opposing player in the jaw causing a bone fracture. Hunt was charged and subsequently found guilty by a jury of aggravated assault. Following his conviction, Hunt agreed to pay as restitution the out-of-pocket medical expenses incurred by the injured individual in the amount of $3,233.07. BCBS provided evidence that it had paid an additional $27,501.86 for the medical treatment of the injured individual under the injured individual’s policy of insurance. The district court applied N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-08(1) in granting restitution to BCBS and ordered Hunt to pay a total of $30,734.93; $3,233.07 for the conceded out-of-pocket costs plus the $27,501.86 claimed by BCBS. Hunt argued BCBS is precluded from recovery of its expenditures in the criminal proceedings because the definition of “victim” under N.D. Const. art. I, section 25 was incompatible with a recovery by a corporation under the criminal restitution statute, N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-08(1). The North Dakota Supreme Court found no reversible error in the district court’s judgment and affirmed the order. View "North Dakota v. Hunt" on Justia Law

Steven Gardner appealed a district court order deferring the imposition of sentence following his conditional guilty plea to conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to deliver. He also appealed an order denying his motion to suppress evidence found in a package that was neither addressed to him, nor sent to his residence. Gardner argued he was the owner of a package unconstitutionally seized by police, and his rights were violated by that seizure and the subsequent search of that package. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the totality of the evidence entered in the district court record demonstrated Gardner had a sufficient possessory interest in the package at the time it was seized at the UPS facility to claim his personal, constitutional rights were violated. Accordingly, all evidence flowing from the illegal seizure and subsequent search should have been suppressed. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's order denying Gardner's motion to suppress, and remanded this matter to allow Gardner to withdraw his guilty plea. View "North Dakota v. Gardner" on Justia Law

North Dakota appealed an order suppressing evidence and dismissing all charges against Perry Odum. 2018, drug task force officers searched the garbage can in front of Odum’s residence based on an anonymous tip that Odum had been out of town and came back “with a quantity of marijuana.” The garbage can was “located in a manner where it would be regularly retrieved by the garbage truck” on the residence’s regularly scheduled garbage pickup day. During the garbage search, officers found two garbage bags containing rolling papers, several empty, labeled plastic packages and tubes, and green, leafy flakes. The packages and tubes were commercially labeled as containing either marijuana or THC and indicated that they appeared to have been legally sold in another state. The State charged Odum with possession of a controlled substance with intent to manufacture or deliver and with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Odum moved to suppress the evidence gathered during the search of his residence and to dismiss all charges against him, arguing probable cause did not exist to issue the search warrant. A district judge found no probable cause for the search warrant and granted Odum’s motions to suppress and dismiss. Under the totality of the circumstances, the North Dakota Supreme Court found sufficient probable cause existed to support a search warrant for Odum’s residence. Because sufficient probable cause to support the search warrant existed, the district court erred in granting Odum’s motions to suppress evidence and dismiss all charges. The Court therefore reversed the suppression order and the dismissal of all charges, and remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Odum" on Justia Law

Joseph Valles appealed a criminal judgment and an order denying his motion to suppress. Valles conditionally pled guilty, preserving the right to appeal the order denying his motion to suppress. Valles argues his cell phone was searched without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The State argues the cell phone was abandoned and therefore no warrant was required to search the phone. We reverse the suppression order and criminal judgment and remand to allow Valles to withdraw his conditional plea of guilty. A cell phone was found in a Devils Lake apartment parking lot, and taken to the police station. Officer John Mickelson guessed the unlock pattern by trying patterns convenient to right-handed users and quickly unlocked the phone. Officer Mickelson then opened the photos application and looked at the stored photos, intending to identify the owner from “selfies” and other photos stored in the phone. He was able to identify both Valles and Jessica Bear from photos and a video. Officer Mickelson knew there was a restraining order against Valles from Bear. Officer Mickelson also saw in the photos what appeared to be drugs and drug paraphernalia. From the photos on the phone, police obtained a search warrant; while executing the warrant, officers found marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia. Valles conditionally pled guilty, preserving the right to appeal the order denying his motion to suppress. Valles argued his cell phone was searched without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The State argued the cell phone was abandoned and therefore no warrant was required to search the phone. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the suppression order and criminal judgment and remanded to allow Valles to withdraw his conditional plea of guilty. In finding the cell phone to be abandoned, the district court misapplied the law by shifting onto Valles the State’s burden to justify a warrantless search. View "North Dakota v. Valles" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order granting Shannon Stenhoff’s motion to suppress evidence. Stenhoff was sentenced to two years of supervised probation, the terms of which included a search clause. After allegedly violating the conditions of his probation, a petition to revoke Stenhoff’s probation was filed, and an order to apprehend was issued. A cursory officer safety search of a residence was conducted. According to testimony of a deputy, while the officers were there, a child residing there questioned if the officers were there for “the drugs and [alluded] to the presence of the illegal narcotics in the residence.” A deputy who conducted the search testified the child’s statement caused him to attempt to contact Stenhoff’s probation officer to notify him of the search for Stenhoff, but the probation officer did not answer the call. The deputy testified there were no narcotics in plain view. Based on the evidence seized during the probationary search, the State filed charges in February 2018. In May 2018, Stenhoff moved to suppress the evidence against him, claiming the warrantless probationary search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Following a suppression hearing, the district court granted Stenhoff’s motion to suppress, concluding the search was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches, because law enforcement should have sought a warrant to search the residence. On appeal, the State argued the search at the residence where Stenhoff was arrested was reasonable because probationers have a lesser expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment, and the statements made to law enforcement by the child living at the residence regarding drugs provided reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at the residence. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded after review that under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable suspicion that drugs were in Stenhoff’s residence was supported by the child’s statement at the time Stenhoff was apprehended for a probation violation. The district court’s order granting Stenhoff’s motion to suppress evidence was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Stenhoff" on Justia Law

Marlon Comes appealed a district court’s second amended criminal judgment entered over twenty years after the original criminal judgment. In 1996, North Dakota charged Comes with murder (class AA felony) and robbery (class A felony). Comes pleaded guilty to both charges and the district court sentenced him on the murder charge to life imprisonment at the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“DOCR”) with the possibility of parole, and a concurrent 10 years for robbery, with 307 days credit for time served. Comes has filed several previous post-conviction relief petitions that were denied. In August 2018, the district court issued a memorandum of law and order for second amended judgment. No post-conviction relief petition was filed prompting the court’s action. While there was nothing in the record to reflect why the court acted, based on the court’s memorandum, the court was apparently responding to a request from DOCR for an amended judgment “that contains a calculation of [Comes’] life expectancy, in order for DOC[R] to determine when he becomes eligible for parole.” The court relied on a table specific to American Indian mortality rates to calculate Comes’ life expectancy of 52 years rather than following the mortality table promulgated by N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 51. The court’s second amended judgment indicates Comes must serve 44 years and 73 days, taking into account the credit for 307 days previously served. Because the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the trial court abused its discretion in sua sponte amending the judgment without providing notice, the arguments Comes made regarding the propriety of the court’s application of N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-09.1, including its 1997 amendments, to his second amended judgment could be considered on remand once notice was provided to both parties. View "North Dakota v. Comes" on Justia Law

Barry Garcia appealed a district court's denial of his request for a new trial and determining N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-13.1 did not apply to his criminal sentence. In 1996, Garcia was found guilty of the offense of murder, committed while he was a juvenile, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. In 2016, Garcia filed a petition for post-conviction relief arguing that imposing a sentence of life without parole on a juvenile violated the constitutional standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016). While Garcia’s appeal was pending, the North Dakota legislature passed HB 1195, which was enacted on April 17, 2017 as N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-13.1 and effective August 1, 2017. The North Dakota Supreme Court declined to rule on Garcia’s request to apply N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-13.1 because it had not been raised at the district court, and ruled without remanding the issue. Following the appeal of the 2016 denial of post-conviction relief, Garcia filed a motion for a new trial in the district court. The court found that a motion for a new trial was not the correct vehicle for requesting relief under N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-13.1, but pursuant to the consent of both parties, agreed to consider whether N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-13.1 applied to Garcia. After a hearing, the court issued an order denying the motion for a new trial and finding N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-13.1 did not apply. The Supreme Court determined Garcia’s conviction was final before the statute’s effective date; granting his requested relief would require retroactive application of the statute and would constitute an infringement on the executive pardoning power. Furthermore, Garcia failed to provide newly discovered evidence to support his motion for a new trial. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order. View "Garcia v. North Dakota" on Justia Law