Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Troy Lehman appealed a district court order dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. In 2009, a jury found Lehman guilty of kidnapping and terrorizing. Lehman was sentenced to ten years in the custody of the Department of Corrections for the kidnapping charge and five years for the terrorizing charge, with the sentences to be served concurrently. Lehman alleged, among other things, that his trial counsel was ineffective for numerous reasons including: (1) he did not subpoena all the witnesses Lehman requested; (2) he failed to impeach several witnesses including Daniel Flyinghawk, Patty LeCroix, and Camille Lorenzen; (3) he failed to demand a mistrial; (4) his closing statement was unrelated to the case; and (5) he failed to inform Lehman that not testifying would hinder the appeals process. After a hearing, the district court denied the petition. Lehman appealed. In late, 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order dismissing the application. Effective August 1, 2013, N.D.C.C. 29-32.1-01(2) was amended and reenacted to create a statute akin to a statute of limitations requiring applications for post-conviction relief to be filed within two years following a conviction. On August 2, 2013, one day after the enactment of N.D.C.C. sections 29-32.1-01(2), and 29-32.1-09(1) and (2), Lehman filed his second application for post-conviction relief, claiming he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the first post-conviction relief hearing. Lehman argued, among other things, that his post-conviction counsel provided ineffective assistance because he failed to: (1) conduct a proper investigation; (2) produce exculpatory evidence; (3) depose key witnesses; and (4) investigate whether trial counsel prepared for cross-examination. The State filed a motion for summary disposition of the application. The district court dismissed the application for post-conviction relief without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in summarily dismissing Lehman's petition for post-conviction relief. View "Lehman v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Michael Hamre appealed a district court order affirming a North Dakota Department of Transportation ("DOT") order disqualifying his commercial driver's license for one year. Hamre argued: (1) that DOT misapplied the law by considering the administrative suspension of his noncommercial license a "conviction" under N.D.C.C. 39-06.2-10(7) (2011); (2) that N.D.C.C. 39-06.2-10(7) (2011) was void for vagueness; (3) that the one-year suspension of his driving privileges commenced on May 29, 2012, rather than on January 13, 2013; and (4) that he was entitled to attorney fees and costs. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Hamre v. N.D. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

Sandy Mangelsen appealed a district court order finding he was a sexually dangerous individual and committed him to the care, custody, and control of the Executive Director of the Department of Human Services. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's findings that Mangelsen had exhibited serious difficulty in controlling his behavior and that he was a sexually dangerous individual were not clearly erroneous. View "Matter of Mangelsen" on Justia Law

Cory Reis appealed criminal judgments entered after he conditionally pled guilty to controlled substance, burglary and theft of property charges. The Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in denying Reis' motion to suppress because the police officers had probable cause to believe his vehicle contained contraband justifying a warrantless search of the vehicle. View "North Dakota v. Reis" on Justia Law

The North Dakota Department of Transportation appealed the reversal of an administrative hearing officer's decision suspending Tammy Wampler's driving privileges. A Jamestown city police officer received a call regarding an intoxicated driver. The officer arrived on the scene, located the vehicle, and observed it weaving between lanes. The officer initiated his overhead lights, but the vehicle continued to drive for almost half a mile before it came to a stop, and it did so only after the officer turned on his siren. The officer administered three field sobriety tests, and Wampler failed two of them and could not complete the other. Wampler submitted to an on-site chemical screening test, which indicated an alcohol concentration level of at least .08. Wampler was then placed under arrest for Driving Under the Influence. Within two hours of driving, Wampler submitted to an intoxilyzer breath test. The test results showed Wampler's alcohol concentration was 0.159. When the officer completed his certified written report to the director, he wrote "0.159" in the "Test Results" blank. Wampler made a timely request for an administrative hearing with the Department. At that hearing, Wampler raised three arguments, one of which was that the Department lacked the authority to revoke her driving privileges because the law enforcement officer failed to write "by weight" next to the notation "0.159" in the "Test Results" blank of his Report and Notice. The administrative hearing officer rejected Wampler's argument, holding "the failure to write 'by weight' is not jurisdictional." The administrative hearing officer suspended Wampler's driving privileges for 91 days, and Wampler appealed to the district court, raising all three issues. The district court determined North Dakota law required the law enforcement officer to complete a certified written report which indicated that test results showed Wampler had a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or greater by weight, that this was a basic and mandatory provision of the statute under prevailing case law, and that, while the law enforcement officer's Report and Notice included the notation "0.159" in the "Test Results" blank, the omission of the phrase "by weight" stripped the Department of authority to suspend Wampler's driving privileges. The district court determined this was the dispositive issue on appeal and did not address Wampler's other arguments. The district court reversed the decision of the administrative hearing officer and ordered that Wampler's driving privileges be restored. The Supreme Court held that the inclusion of the phrase "by weight" in the "Test Results" portion of a law enforcement officer's certified written report was not necessary to satisfy N.D.C.C. 39-20-03.1. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court and reinstated the administrative hearing officer's decision. View "Wampler v. N.D. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

Joshua Cook appealed a criminal judgment entered after he conditionally pled guilty to four drug-related charges and after a jury found him guilty of reckless endangerment. Because he failed to comply with the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. View "North Dakota v. Cook" on Justia Law

In March 2011, the State charged defendant Mitchell Holbach with terrorizing, alleging he had sent letters or filed documents with the court threatening various public officials, law enforcement officers, and court-appointed attorneys involved in his prior convictions. He appealed the trial court order: (1) finding he was not competent to understand the proceedings against him and assist in his defense in a criminal prosecution for terrorizing; (2) suspending the prosecution against him; (3) ordering him committed to the care and custody of the State Hospital with directions for annual evaluations to determine whether he has attained competency to understand the proceedings against him and assist in his defense; and (4) ordering dismissal of the charges if he has not attained competency by March 2016. Defendant argued the district court erred in finding he was not competent to assist in his defense. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the court did not clearly err in finding defendant was not competent to assist in his defense. Furthermore, the Court also concluded that defendant's pretrial commitment to the State Hospital under N.D.C.C. 12.1-04-08 must comply with the statutory procedures and safeguards of N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.1. The Court modified the trial court's order, and as modified, affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Holbach" on Justia Law

Alicia Hart appealed her conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia after entering a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress. In a separate case, Paul Timothy Sitte appealed his conviction possession of hashish, possession of methamphetamine drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana drug paraphernalia after also entering a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Upon review of these appeals, the Supreme Court reversed the judgments and remanded the cases to allow Hart and Sitte to withdraw their guilty pleas and for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Hart" on Justia Law

Sagebrush Resources, LLC, appealed the grant of summary judgment dismissing with prejudice its action for trespass and for injunctive relief against Daryl, Larry, and Galen Peterson. The trial court found the action was frivolous and not made in good faith, and awarded the Petersons $23,729 in attorney fees. Sagebrush argued on appeal that the district court abused its discretion in deciding Sagebrush's claims were frivolous and not made in good faith and in awarding the Petersons $23,729 in attorney fees. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed. View "Sagebrush Resources, LLC v. Peterson" on Justia Law

In prosecutions underlying this appeal, Casey Phillips applied for indigent defense services, and the district court appointed counsel to represent him. Phillips pled guilty to charges of violating a domestic violence protection order, stalking, terrorizing, and criminal trespass. He did not directly appeal the convictions. Phillips applied for post-conviction relief in January 2013, claiming his trial counsel was ineffective, his convictions were obtained as a result of a coerced confession and unlawfully induced guilty plea, and evidence not previously presented required the convictions be vacated. Phillips again applied for indigent defense counsel, and an attorney was assigned to represent him. Following a hearing, the district court dismissed Phillips's application for post-conviction relief, concluding, "For the reasons stated on the record, the Petition for Post-Conviction Relief is hereby dismissed." Phillips appealed the dismissal of his petition. Concluding the district court abused its discretion in denying Phillips's request for a transcript of the post-conviction hearing, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Phillips v. North Dakota" on Justia Law