Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jesse White appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found he was guilty of possession of certain materials prohibited. White was on supervised probation when his residence was searched. His probation conditions required him to submit to a search of his person, vehicle or residence as requested by his probation officer. a probation officer searched White's residence after police officers received a tip from White's girlfriend. White's girlfriend told officers that she discovered images of clothed, young girls in provocative positions and that White was uploading pictures to a cell phone with no service. The probation officer and police officers went to White's residence where the probation officer informed White of the reason for searching his residence and that they were interested in images on any computers or phones. After review of this matter, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the probation search of White's cell phones did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights and sufficient evidence supported his conviction. View "North Dakota v. White" on Justia Law

Fritz Opp was stopped for speeding by a Grand Forks police officer in the early morning hours of October 30, 2015. After failing field sobriety tests, Opp was arrested for driving under the influence. The arresting officer testified he asked Opp multiple times to take the intoxilyzer test and Opp never agreed to take it. The officer charged Opp with refusing to submit to chemical testing. Opp filed a motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges. The district court entered an order denying Opp's motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges. One jury trial was held on both charges. The jury found Opp guilty of refusing to submit to a chemical test and not guilty of driving under the influence. Opp filed a motion for a new trial, arguing he was entitled to separate trials for each of the charges. The district court entered an order denying Opp's motion for a new trial. Opp appealed, but finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "City of Grand Forks v. Opp" on Justia Law

Adam Hamilton appeals from the district court judgment denying him post-conviction relief. Hamilton pled guilty to continuous sexual abuse of a child and was sentenced to 30 years in prison. Hamilton argued on appeal of the conviction and sentence that the district court erred in denying his application for post-conviction relief because he did not have the ability at the hearing to communicate and transmit documents with his attorney. Hamilton also argued the district court erred in denying his transport order because he had a right to be personally present at the hearing. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hamilton v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Steven Gibson entered a conditional guilty plea after the district court rejected his claim that the State violated his right to a speedy trial. The issue his case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether the ninety-day period under N.D.C.C. 29-19-02 began when Gibson gave his speedy trial request to the prison for mailing or whether it began when the district court and the state's attorney received Gibson's request. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the ninety-day period under N.D.C.C. 29-19-02 began when the district court and the state's attorney received Gibson's request for a speedy trial and thus that Gibson's trial was scheduled within ninety days. View "North Dakota v. Gibson" on Justia Law

Michael Cox appeals from a criminal judgment entered after he pled guilty to assault. Cox argued he did not receive all of the discovery he requested and he could not make a knowing, intelligent and voluntary guilty plea without viewing all of the relevant information. Cox requested the Supreme Court remand his case for the district court to determine whether he was entitled to withdraw his plea. Finding that Cox appealed the criminal judgment, but he did not raise any issues related to the criminal judgment on appeal. Rather, Cox only requested that this case be remanded to the district court to determine whether he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. Because the district court neither filed nor ruled on those motions, the Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment. View "North Dakota v. Cox" on Justia Law

Wesley Cody appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 2013, Cody was charged with aggravated assault and reckless endangerment related to a stabbing incident in Morton County. The district court appointed counsel to defend Cody on those charges. In 2014, Cody pled guilty to reckless endangerment. As part of his plea agreement, the State dismissed a class C felony aggravated assault charge alleging Cody stabbed another person. Cody was sentenced to one year with the North Dakota Department of Corrections, suspended for a period of three years. He was placed on probation. On February 3, 2015, Cody's probation was revoked and he was sentenced to serve two years with the North Dakota Department of Corrections. In 2015, Cody filed an application for post-conviction relief. In his application, Cody claimed he had new evidence and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. He argued the district court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing before denying his application. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing unless requested by a party. Because the district court may deny a defendant's application for post-conviction relief on the merits after the defendant is provided notice and an opportunity to present evidence, the Court affirmed. View "Cody v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

The State, through Ward County Assistant State's Attorney Marie Miller, petitioned the Supreme Court for a supervisory writ directing the district court to vacate its order excluding Special Agent Pat Helfrich's testimony in the matter of “North Dakota v. Pittenger,” pending in North Central Judicial District Court. The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction and directed the district court to vacate its order excluding the testimony of Special Agent Pat Helfrich. The Court concluded the district court's order was premature, directed the court to allow the trial to go forward, and to enter its rulings on the proffered testimony as it was offered in such a manner as to allow the court to determine whether the proffered testimony was lay factual testimony under N.D.R.Ev. 401, lay opinion testimony under N.D.R.Ev. 701, or expert opinion testimony under N.D.R.Ev. 702. View "North Dakota v. Louser" on Justia Law

Keith Kraft applied for post-conviction relief to vacate his 1983 drug delivery conviction. The State moved to dismiss, arguing his application was time-barred under N.D.C.C. 29-32.1-01. Twenty-eight days after the State's motion, and before Kraft responded, the district court dismissed. The court denied Kraft's motion for reconsideration. Kraft appeals, arguing the district court erred by dismissing his application for post-conviction relief without allowing him thirty days to respond under the rules of civil procedure. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. “If the State's motion to dismiss does not ask the district court to go beyond the pleadings, the applicant must be allowed fourteen days to respond.” View "Kraft v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Cheryl Pfeffer was charged with delivery of a controlled substance and convicted after a two day jury trial. She appealed the district court’s order denying her post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding that the district court erred in requiring Pfeffer to prove her appeal had a reasonable probability of success for her to have a valid claim of ineffective assistance. View "Pfeffer v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Terry Brendel appealed an order forfeiting $5,000 of the $25,000 bail bond he posted for his son, Travis. Because Terry was not statutorily authorized to appeal the bond forfeiture order, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. View "North Dakota v. Brendel" on Justia Law