Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and four counts of endangerment of a child. Defendant was assigned an attorney and waived his right to a preliminary hearing on all charges. The State emailed Defendant's attorney, informing him of its intention to file a notice of habitual offender status, and subsequently filed the notice. In the notice, the State alleged Booth qualified as an adult, and he had been convicted of unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, a class C felony, on April 23, 2010, and unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine, a class A felony, on July 13, 2005. Attached to the notice of habitual offender status were certified judgments for both previous felony convictions. The district court held a change of plea and sentencing hearing, and explained the potential for increased penalties, as a result of the habitual offender status, to defendant. Defendant entered pleas of guilty to all counts, and the district court accepted the pleas. The district court sentenced defendant to ten years of incarceration on each count to be served concurrently, with credit for 43 days served. Defendant then moved for a reduction of sentence. The district court denied the motion. Defendant moved under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a)(1) to correct an illegal sentence, claiming his sentence was illegal because the one-day notice given by the State of its intent to seek habitual offender status was insufficient as a matter of law. The court denied the motion, and defendant appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Booth" on Justia Law

Carrie Jean Berg appealed criminal judgments entered on guilty pleas for two counts of gross sexual imposition against a minor child. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Berg waived her factual argument regarding the application of the statute of limitations, by voluntarily pleading guilty with knowledge of the factual dispute. The Court further declined to notice obvious error with regard to Berg's argument that the district court sentenced her in excess of a plea agreement she alleged existed. View "North Dakota v. Berg" on Justia Law

In December 2013, Joseph Barnes made an initial appearance in the district court after being arrested and charged for driving while under the influence of alcohol, a class A misdemeanor. Barnes was also charged for driving while his license was suspended and failure to transfer vehicle title, both class B misdemeanors. In April 2014, the district court held a hearing originally designated as a status conference, but which ultimately became a change of plea and sentencing hearing. At the outset of the hearing, Barnes, rather than the State, introduced into the record a May 2012 district court judgment and a March 2013 Minot municipal court judgment, establishing that he had two prior convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol. Although the March 2013 judgment indicated Barnes waived the right to counsel before entering his guilty plea, the May 2012 judgment made no reference to either representation by counsel or waiver of counsel before Barnes's entry of a guilty plea. Before pleading guilty to the December 2013 charges in this case, Barnes objected to using the May 2012 judgment as a "sentencing enhancement" for driving under the influence because the judgment did not indicate Barnes either had counsel or had waived his right to counsel. The district court concluded the waiver of the right to counsel in the March 2013 judgment cured any constitutional defect regarding the alleged lack of counsel or specific waiver of counsel in the May 2012 judgment. Barnes appealed the subsequent sentence he received after convicted of driving under the influence, arguing his sentence was incorrectly enhanced. Because Barnes entered a counseled, unconditional guilty plea to driving under the influence as a class A misdemeanor, he failed to preserve the issue he raised on appeal. As such, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Barnes" on Justia Law

In the early morning hours of October 10, 2010, a desk clerk at a Minot hotel was shot. Defendant Allen Rencountre was staying at the hotel and the shooting was recorded by the hotel's front desk security camera. Rencountre would later be charged with attempted murder, a class A felony, and fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer, a class C felony. The State also filed a special dangerous offender notice against Rencountre to enhance the maximum penalty. Rencountre's retained attorney requested a mental health evaluation of Rencountre be performed at the State Hospital, and the State joined in the request. The evaluation revealed that Rencountre was competent to stand trial and was not suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time of the offense. Rencountre pled guilty under a plea agreement to attempted murder. The charge of fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer was dismissed as part of the plea agreement, and the district court found Rencountre was a special dangerous offender. Rencountre waived his right to a presentence report and requested that he be sentenced immediately. The State orally advised the court that Rencountre had no prior criminal history. The court sentenced Rencountre to 30 years in prison with 10 years suspended, followed by 5 years of supervised probation. Rencountre appealed an order denying his application for postconviction relief. Because the district court did not err in concluding Rencountre failed to establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and because the court's error in failing to receive a written criminal record report before sentencing Rencountre was harmless, the Supreme Court affirmed the order. View "Rencountre v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Jeremy Johnson was committed as a sexually dangerous individual in 2012, and his commitment was affirmed by the North Dakota Supreme Court in "Interest of Johnson," (835 N.W.2d 806). In August 2013, Johnson petitioned the district court for discharge. At the discharge hearing, Dr. Robert Lisota testified for the State contending that Johnson remained a sexually dangerous individual subject to continued civil commitment. Johnson's experts, Dr. Stacey Benson and Dr. Troy Ertelt, testified at the discharge hearing asserting Johnson no longer met the criteria for civil commitment. After the hearing, the district court found the State had proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that Johnson remained a sexually dangerous individual subject to continued civil commitment. Johnson appealed the district court's order denying his petition. Concluding that the district court did not make sufficient findings of fact, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further findings. View "Interest of Johnson" on Justia Law

In April 1997, a jury convicted petitioner-appellant Mark Steinbach of murder, and physical obstruction of a governmental function and tampering with physical evidence. Steinbach was sentenced to life imprisonment, without the opportunity of parole, for his murder conviction. Steinbach appealed the part-denial of his application for post-conviction, arguing his post-conviction counsel was ineffective for failing to argue or provide evidentiary support that he received ineffective assistance of counsel from his trial and appellate counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Steinbach v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Defendant Damon White Bird was convicted by jury of attempted murder, felonious restraint, tampering with physical evidence, and aggravated assault. White Bird filed a document in which he fired his attorney and moved to dismiss the case. At the end of one hearing, White Bird purported to rescind the document firing his attorney; at another hearing, White Bird insisted he wanted to represent himself. At the five-day jury trial, White Bird represented himself with the limited assistance of stand by counsel. White Bird appealed his conviction, arguing he was not competent to waive his right to counsel at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding White Bird was competent to waive his right to counsel, the district court did not err in regulating the introduction of evidence and instructing the jury at the trial, and sufficient evidence supported his convictions. View "North Dakota v. White Bird" on Justia Law

Defendant Gary Glaser was charged with indecent exposure after he allegedly pulled up to a stranger walking on a sidewalk, stopped his vehicle, and exposed himself (his genitals) to the victim. Glaser initially pled not guilty. After being provided a court-appointed attorney, he entered a guilty plea. At the sentencing hearing, Glaser argued he should not have to register as a sex offender because he had no prior criminal history as a sex offender, he did not exhibit any mental abnormality or predatory conduct, and the victim was not a minor. The State argued his conduct met the statutory definition of predatory conduct because it was directed at a stranger. The district court agreed with the State and determined Glaser was required to register. Glaser also received a sentence of one year, with nine months suspended, and he was placed on probation for two years. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Glaser to register as a sex offender. View "North Dakota v. Glaser" on Justia Law

Gayne Gasal appealed a district court criminal judgment after a jury convicted him of hunting without a license, and the district court's order denying his motions to suppress evidence obtained after the issuance of a search warrant of his farmstead for two hunting rifles. Gasal also sought suppression of statements he made during conversations with the game warden. Gasal argued the search warrant was invalid, and that he should have been given his Miranda rights prior to speaking with the game warden. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Gasal" on Justia Law

Jesse Eckroth appealed a district court judgment that sentenced him on his third offense of driving under the influence ("DUI"), a class A misdemeanor. Eckroth argued the district court order sentencing him for his third DUI conviction should have been remanded with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal because he was convicted using invalid prior convictions. He also argued the district court erred in denying him credit for time served in custody as a result of multiple violations of the 24/7 sobriety program. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Eckroth" on Justia Law