Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Michael Foster appealed his conviction on one count of conspiracy to commit criminal mischief, one count of criminal mischief, and one count of criminal trespass. On appeal, Foster argued the district court erred in admitting or excluding certain evidence and that there was insufficient evidence to support the criminal mischief and conspiracy convictions. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "North Dakota v. Foster" on Justia Law

Raymond Christensen appealed his conviction and sentence stemming from charges for leaving the scene of an accident involving injury and aggravated reckless driving. Because the district court substantially relied upon an impermissible factor in sentencing Christensen to jail, the North Dakota Supreme Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "North Dakota v. Christensen" on Justia Law

Joshua Ourada appealed a district court order summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. In June 2017, Ourada pleaded guilty to terrorizing and preventing arrest or discharge of other duties. Ourada was sentenced to three years of imprisonment following his guilty plea. In January 2018, Ourada filed an application for post-conviction relief, raising four issues: (1) an unlawful search; (2) exigent circumstances; (3) a challenge to the chain of custody regarding evidence; and (4) exaggerated charges. The State responded with an answer asserting Ourada waived the four issues stated in his application because all nonjurisdictional defects alleged to have occurred prior to a voluntary guilty plea are waived. The State's answer also included a request for summary disposition citing N.D.C.C. 29-32.1-09(3). Twelve days later, the district court summarily dismissed Ourada's application without a response from Ourada. Ourada asserts he was not provided with proper notice prior to summary dismissal of his application. Due process, even in the post-conviction setting, requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded that because Ourada's application for post-conviction relief was summarily dismissed subsequent to the State's response and without proper notice, summary dismissal was not appropriate. The order dismissing the application for post-conviction relief was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Ourada v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

E.S. appealed an order requiring involuntary treatment in which the district court found him to be mentally ill and a person requiring treatment. In late 2018, Dr. Katrina DeDona submitted an application for emergency admission for E.S. to be admitted to the North Dakota State Hospital after being paroled from James River Correctional Center for a charge of terrorizing. The application alleged E.S. was often agitated, preoccupied with a belief that there was a conspiracy against him, and, as a result, unable to participate in his own treatment and discharge planning. A petition for involuntary commitment was filed, claiming E.S. was mentally ill and there was a reasonable expectation of serious risk of harm if he was not treated. E.S. requested and was appointed an independent examiner. Three witnesses, qualified as experts, were called by the petitioner, including Dr. DeDona, and the independent medical examiner. E.S. testified on his own behalf. At the conclusion of the treatment hearing, the district court issued its order on the record, finding clear and convincing evidence establishing E.S. was mentally ill and a person requiring treatment. The court ordered E.S. be hospitalized for a period not to exceed 90 days, ending February 11, 2019. On appeal, E.S. argues the district court's order was not supported by clear and convincing evidence to show he was mentally ill and a person requiring treatment. Based upon the evidence, the North Dakota Supreme Court held the district court's finding that E.S. was a person requiring treatment was not clearly erroneous, and affirmed commitment. View "Interest of E.S." on Justia Law

Rocky Stein appealed a district court's order summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. Stein was the driver of one of two vehicles involved in an accident that occurred in September 2013. The driver of the other vehicle died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident. Stein was subsequently charged with criminal vehicular homicide. While represented by counsel, Stein pleaded guilty to an amended charge of manslaughter. Stein was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment with three years suspended for a period of five years. In his petition for post-conviction relief, Stein alleged various errors made by his attorney. Stein argued to the North Dakota Supreme Court he received ineffective assistance of counsel prior to his guilty plea. Stein contended he was not informed he would be required to serve 85 percent of any period of incarceration imposed as part of his sentence and that his sentence was likely to be limited to probation. Stein also stated in his affidavit, "I would not have pled guilty had I . . . [understood] the implications of the manslaughter plea . . . ." The Supreme Court determined the district court did not address Stein's allegation he was not informed he would be required to serve 85 percent of any period of incarceration imposed as part of his sentence, and that had he been informed of that requirement, he would not have pled guilty. Therefore, the case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing regarding that issue. The Court affirmed summary dismissal as to all other issues, and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Stein v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Anquine White appealed a district court judgment after a jury found him guilty of drug, paraphernalia and firearm possession. White argued officers conducted a warrantless, suspicionless probationary search and violated his constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The North Dakota Supreme Court found reasonable suspicion of White's roommate violating probation was the support for the initial search of the home, and discovery of evidence in plain view permissibly expanded the search. View "North Dakota v. White" on Justia Law

Jeremy Ferderer appealed a January 25, 2018 order entered after the district court initially denied his self-represented motions under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a) for correction of an illegal sentence and for summary judgment, and thereafter denied his self-represented "informational motion to compel and answer." In an affidavit in support of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, Ferderer claimed every part of his sentence for a class C felony, including the term of probation, had to fall within a five year maximum incarceration range and that the double jeopardy clause forbade more than a single punishment of incarceration. He claimed "PUNISHMENT included both imprisonment and supervision upon release and credit must be given both to keep sentence from being a double jeopardy violation and to keep a sentence from exceeding the maximum punishment." The State responded, arguing Ferderer's sentence was not illegal because his was a second conviction for stalking, and under N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-06.1(6)(a) and (b) he was subject to ten years of supervised probation in no more than five year increments. In a January 5, 2018 order, the district court denied Ferderer's motions for correction of an illegal sentence and for summary judgment. The court explained the revocation of Ferderer's probation did not constitute double jeopardy, and neither the original sentence nor the amended sentence exceeded the maximum sentence allowed by law. On January 19, 2018, Ferderer filed an "informational motion to compel and answer." On January 25, 2018, the court denied that motion, stating there was "no matter pending to which a motion to compel could be addressed" and if Ferderer's motion was intended as a motion to reconsider the earlier January order, the motion to reconsider was denied. Ferderer filed a self-represented notice of appeal from the January 25, 2018 order. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "North Dakota v. Ferderer" on Justia Law

Nathan Bornsen appealed the judgment entered following his conditional plea of guilty to a charge alleging he had been driving under the influence with one prior offense. Bornsen argued the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because because the deputy did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion to believe Bornsen violated the law. Stopping, standing, or parking in particular locations is prohibited by N.D.C.C. 39-10-49. The statute enumerated 14 specific locations where vehicles may not be stopped "except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer or traffic-control device . . . ." The North Dakota Supreme Court found that the deputy observed Bornsen stop for an extended time at an intersection, and it was objectively reasonable under the circumstances for the deputy to believe that there had been a violation of N.D.C.C. 39-10-49. The apparent violation, even if considered common or minor, was prohibited conduct which provided the deputy with requisite suspicion for conducting an investigatory stop. The district court, therefore, did not err in denying Bornsen's motion to suppress, and the court's judgment was affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Bornsen" on Justia Law

Aaron Kulink appealed an order denying discharge from commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. Kulink argued: (1) the district court did not make sufficient findings on the "likely to reoffend" and "serious difficulty controlling behavior" elements; and (2) the State did not meet its burden of clear and convincing evidence on the two required elements. The North Dakota Supreme Court found the district court did not make findings of fact sufficient to permit appellate review. The Supreme Court retained and remand the district court's commitment order with instructions that, within thirty days from the filing of this opinion, the district court make specific findings of fact on whether Kulink was likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct and whether Kulink had a present serious difficulty controlling behavior beyond that of a dangerous but ordinary criminal recidivist. View "Matter of Kulink" on Justia Law

Mark Rogers appealed his conviction for gross sexual imposition ("GSI"). Rogers argued the district court: (1) violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial by closing his competency hearing on March 28, 2017; and (2) acted arbitrarily when it assigned extradition costs as restitution to this case. Because the district court did not make individualized findings supporting closure of the competency hearing, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded Rogers’ Sixth Amendment public trial guarantee was violated. The restitution award was proper however, and was affirmed. The Court reversed the district court's closure of the competency hearing and remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Rogers" on Justia Law