Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Ronald Rogers, Jr., appealed a judgment denying his application for post-conviction relief and orders denying his post-hearing motions to amend the findings of fact and for a new trial. Rogers conditionally pled guilty to murdering his wife and to willful disturbance of a dead body, reserving the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress his confession to police based on a lack of Miranda warnings and involuntariness. Looking at the totality of the facts, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded Rogers' confession was voluntary. Because the district court did not err in ruling that Rogers received effective assistance of trial counsel or abuse its discretion in denying the post-hearing motions, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment denying the request for post-conviction relief. View "Rogers v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Anjelo Sheperd appealed his conviction entered after a bench trial on stipulated facts, finding him guilty of patronizing a minor for commercial sexual activity. Law enforcement arrested Sheperd as a part of a multi-agency sting operation targeted at apprehending individuals paying, or attempting to pay, for sex with minors. Law enforcement posted an advertisement on Backpage.com. The advertisement impliedly sought sexual encounters with men, but did not reference involvement with a minor. Sheperd responded to the advertisement. A text message exchange between Sheperd and an undercover officer, purporting to be a female, discussed rates for sexual activities. Later in the text message exchange, the undercover officer told Sheperd "she" was almost seventeen. Sheperd arrived at the sting location, set up at a hotel in Fargo, and was arrested and charged. On appeal, Sheperd argued N.D.C.C. 12.1-41-06(1)(a) required the presence of a minor and because no actual minor was involved in this case, the State did not meet its burden of proof. Sheperd further argued the North Dakota Supreme Court should have decided North Dakota v. Davison, 900 N.W.2d 66, differently. The Supreme Court found that under the plain language of N.D.C.C. 12.1-41-06(1)(a), an individual could be convicted of an offense if the agreement was made with someone other than a minor. "This construction interprets the statute in a practical manner, giving consideration to the context of the statute and the purpose for which it was enacted. This construction also targets those who intentionally seek out children as their sexual objects, as provided in the comments to Section 7 of the Uniform Act on Prevention of and Remedies for Human Trafficking drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws." The Court was not persuaded that "Davidson" should have been decided differently. View "North Dakota v. Sheperd" on Justia Law

Phillip Martinson appealed a district court judgment affirming an agency decision to suspend his driver's license for 180 days for being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a class C felony. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined a fact-finder could reasonably conclude the driveway at issue, although private, was an area "to which the public has a right of access for vehicular use." Accordingly, the Court affirmed. View "Martinson v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Danny Myers appealed a district court order denying his motion to correct his sentence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a)(2). Myers sought to retroactively apply 2015 legislative amendments, which removed class C felony aggravated assault from the statutory provision requiring a person to serve eighty-five percent of a sentence of incarceration. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a)(2) because his sentence did not contain an arithmetical, technical, or other clear error to correct. View "North Dakota v. Myers" on Justia Law

Barry Garcia appealed a district court order summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. A juvenile petition was filed alleging Garcia had committed murder, attempted robbery, aggravated assault, and criminal street gang crime. At the State's request, the court transferred Garcia to adult court for trial. At trial, the district court dismissed the robbery and criminal street gang charges. The jury found Garcia guilty of murder, a class AA felony, and aggravated assault, a class C felony. After a sentencing hearing, the district court sentenced Garcia to life imprisonment without parole on the murder conviction, and to a concurrent five years' imprisonment on the aggravated assault conviction. Garcia appealed, arguing his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court's 1996 sentencing of Garcia to life imprisonment without parole did not violate the Eighth Amendment. The Court affirmed the district court's order summarily dismissing Garcia's application for post-conviction relief. View "Garcia v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Charles Mayland appealed his conviction entered upon a jury finding him guilty of being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor fourth-offense, a class C felony. The North Dakota Supreme Court held a defendant fails to preserve a jury instruction issue for appellate review when he stipulates to the exclusion of a jury instruction regarding prior convictions. Furthermore, the crime of actual physical control may occur on private property, including a private driveway. Here, the parties stipulated to the existence of Mayland's prior convictions, and Mayland's driveway was within the scope of the statute. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed Mayland's conviction. View "North Dakota v. Mayland" on Justia Law

In 2016, a Ward County North Dakota Narcotics Task Force Officer observed a black Dodge Charger traveling east bound in the west bound lane near 36th Avenue NE in Minot. A Minot police officer initiated a traffic stop for the traffic violation; the task force officer was traveling in an unmarked patrol vehicle. The Charger continued for a few blocks before coming to a stop. Neither the State nor Dustin Lark disputed Lark was lawfully stopped when he was pulled over for driving in the wrong lane. Lark was arrested for unlawful possession of a schedule III drug with intent to deliver. Lark filed a motion to suppress evidence of items found during that stop. The State opposed the motion. The district court held a hearing on the suppression motion at which one of the officers testified. Both parties questioned the officer and filed post-hearing briefs. The district court granted Lark's motion to suppress. The district court found the initial search was permissible under the automobile exception; however, the district court also found probable cause ceased to exist after receiving the inconclusive field test results of suspected crack cocaine. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, finding the district court erred when it determined probable cause to search ceased upon receiving the inconclusive drug test result without considering the totality of the circumstances in an objective manner. View "North Dakota v. Lark" on Justia Law

Arthur Crissler appealed a district court judgment after a jury convicted him of possessing a weapon in a correctional facility. The charges arose from the search of Crissler's cell block on September 3, 2016 during which a pencil wrapped in paper, thread, and elastic was found concealed underneath the mattress of Crissler's bunk. Because sufficient evidence was presented to support the jury's verdict, and the testimony regarding the potential use and composition of an altered pencil was admissible, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Crissler" on Justia Law

Anthony Campbell appealed a criminal judgment after a jury found him guilty of murder for the 2014 stabbing death of Shannon Brunelle. The autopsy report stated Brunelle had seven lethal stab wounds in his back and neck and had been beaten with a golf club. Minot police arrested Campbell for the murder of Brunelle. At trial, the State submitted evidence showing Campbell's DNA was found inside a pair of bloody athletic shoes found inside the garage. Campbell's DNA was also found on a broken golf club used to strike Brunelle. Campbell testified at trial he had no involvement in Brunelle's murder. Campbell offered testimony from Ross Rolshoven, an expert private investigator to provide his opinions of the case. Rolshoven testified that he believed at least two assailants were present when Brunelle was murdered. Rolshoven also provided his opinions about the State's investigation and a third-party's possible involvement in Brunelle's murder. The district court sustained the State's objections when Rolshoven testified about facts not in evidence. After a seven-day trial, the jury found Campbell guilty of Brunelle's murder. Campbell argued on appeal of his conviction that the district court should have allowed his expert to provide all of his opinions about Brunelle's murder. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary decisions relating to the testimony of Campbell's expert witness and the admission of evidence of prior bad acts. View "North Dakota v. Campbell" on Justia Law

Haruna Giwa appealed the summary dismissal of his application for post-conviction relief based on a newly adopted rule of criminal procedure. Giwa pleaded guilty to interference with a telephone during an emergency call, and the district court entered the criminal judgment on November 17, 2015. Giwa was not a citizen or permanent resident of the United States. Giwa was paroled into the United States in November 2014. In 2016, the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") terminated Giwa's parole status. As part of his guilty plea, Giwa signed an acknowledgment of rights, waiver of appearance, plea agreement, and plea on November 16, 2015. However, the acknowledgment and plea documents did not include information about the possible immigration consequences if Giwa was not a United States citizen. Giwa applied for post-conviction relief, arguing he was not advised of "the right to a jury trial, the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses, the right to be protected from compelled self-incrimination or to testify and present evidence." Giwa also argued he was not informed of the potential immigration status consequences if he pleaded guilty to interference with a telephone during an emergency call. Further, Giwa contends he did not know DHS would terminate his parole and detain him due to pleading guilty to a crime. The district court denied Giwa's application for post-conviction relief and granted the State's motion for summary disposition under N.D.C.C. 29-32.1-09. In granting the State's motion, the district court determined Giwa acknowledged his rights, including the waiver of his right to counsel. Additionally, the district court concluded the addition of N.D.R.Crim.P.11(b)(1)(j) did not apply retroactively, meaning neither the State nor the district court had an obligation to inform Giwa about the effect of a guilty plea on his immigration status. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Giwa v. North Dakota" on Justia Law