Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Rebecca Jessee appealed a district court order deferring imposition of sentence after she was found guilty of tampering with a public service. Jessee argued her presence on railroad tracks during the Dakota Access Pipeline protest did not constitute tampering with tangible property and the district court improperly classified Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railway as a public service. The North Dakota Supreme Court agreed and reversed, concluding Jessee's presence on the tracks did not constitute tampering with tangible property. View "North Dakota v. Jessee" on Justia Law

North Dakota appealed a district court order dismissing with prejudice felony charges of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver against Mitchell James and Taelor Brown. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the production of hash oil is "manufacturing" as defined in N.D.C.C. 19-03.1-01(17), and because the district court made a mistake of law regarding the possession with intent to deliver charge, the State met the burden of proving probable cause. View "North Dakota v. James" on Justia Law

William Wallace appealed a second amended criminal judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to luring minors by computer or other electronic means. Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must inform a defendant of and determine the defendant understood any mandatory minimum penalty, including any mandatory minimum term of probation. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not substantially comply with N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 when the court failed to inform Wallace of and determine that he understood the five-year mandatory minimum period of probation. The Court therefore reversed and remanded this case to the district court to allow Wallace to withdraw his plea of guilty and for further necessary proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Wallace" on Justia Law

JanMichel Wangstad was convicted by jury of attempted murder. Wangstad argued on appeal: (1) the district court erred in the admission of social media posts he made prior to the alleged crime; (2) the jury was given erroneous instructions; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. West Fargo police were dispatched to the Rodeway Inn in response to a report of a man with a gun. Responding officers located the source of the disturbance in one of the rooms. One of the officers knocked on the door of the room and announced, "police." A female acquaintance of Wangstad opened the door and began to step back into the room. The officers told the female to get down on the ground. Two officers then entered a few steps into the room and noticed Wangstad standing by a desk. Wangstad made a fast-paced movement from the desk to the corner of the room where he fired a gun in the direction of one of the officers. The bullet traveled through the wall above the entry door to the room and lodged into the wall of another room. Finding no reversible error in the district court judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Wangstad's conviction. View "North Dakota v. Wangstad" on Justia Law