Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Manmohan Garg appealed a district court order denying his motion to withdraw guilty pleas in two criminal cases. He argued the district court erred by denying the motion because his attorneys were constitutionally ineffective for failing to advise him of the deportation consequences of the plea agreements as required by the United States Supreme Court decision in "Padilla v. Kentucky," 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010). Defendant was a non-citizen living in the United States. In April 2011, he received notice from United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement that his immigration status was being revoked and that he was subject to deportation as a result of two previous criminal convictions in Ward County, North Dakota. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court's finding was not clearly erroneous. Even assuming Defendant's attorney failed to advise him of the deportation consequences of the 2000 guilty plea, Defendant could not prove prejudice because he knew the guilty plea could result in deportation as a result of his involvement in prior criminal proceedings. Because Defendant failed to prove prejudice, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his 2000 guilty plea. View "North Dakota v. Garg" on Justia Law

Defendant Trevor Mertz appealed a district court criminal judgment entered after a jury convicted him of burglary. Defendant argued that: (1) after the jury retired for deliberation, the district court erred by providing an incorrect and misleading answer to the jury's request for instruction on the law; and (2) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the conviction. Defendant was charged with burglary for entering his ex-girlfriend's home and taking a television. Defendant was tried by a jury and testified at trial. Defendant admitted to entering the residence and taking the television but claimed the television did not belong to his ex-girlfriend. Defendant testified the television was his and he loaned it to his ex-girlfriend for their child's use. Two witnesses called by the State testified the television belonged to Defendant's ex-girlfriend. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's criminal judgment. View "North Dakota v. Mertz" on Justia Law

Jordan Michael Engelhardt appealed a domestic violence protection order prohibiting him from having contact with Sara J. Rinas for twenty years. Engelhardt and Rinas, who were never married, have a minor child together. In 2011, after the relationship ended, Rinas filed a petition for protective relief from Engelhardt. Rinas alleged Engelhardt had been physically abusive on multiple occasions, one of which occurred while Engelhardt was holding their child. Rinas also alleged Engelhardt had threatened to kill her and she received threatening text messages from him. The district court granted a temporary domestic violence protection order and scheduled a hearing. In October 2011, Engelhardt filed a parenting time action, but no parenting time order had been issued. Despite Engelhardt's testimony at the hearing, he did not challenge the finding of domestic violence on appeal. Nor did he challenge the interpretation of the domestic violence protection order statute; rather, he argued the judicial referee abused his discretion by including the specific terms of relief in the protection order. Upon review, the Supreme Court modified the domestic violence protection order and affirmed it as modified. View "Rinas v. Engelhardt" on Justia Law

The North Dakota Department of Transportation appealed a district court's judgment reversing an administrative hearing officer's decision to suspend Petitioner's driving privileges for two years for driving under the influence of alcohol. "A reasoning mind reasonably could have concluded that the hearing officer's finding that [Petitioner] did not have anything to eat, drink, or smoke during the twenty minutes before the Intoxilyzer test" was supported by the weight of the evidence on the entire record. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment and reinstated the administrative suspension of Petitioner's driving privileges. View "Thorsrud v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Defendant Branden Clark appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of theft of property. On appeal, Defendant argued: the district court erred in refusing to give his requested jury instruction; insufficient evidence existed to support his conviction; his sentence was erroneous and excessive; and the court erred in admitting evidence the State failed to disclose before trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no error in the trial court record, and that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction. View "North Dakota v. Clark" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Erling "Curly" Haugland appealed and Defendant-Appellee City of Bismarck cross-appealed a grant of summary judgment that declared North Dakota's Urban Renewal Law constitutional, and Bismarck's implementation of an urban renewal plan and use of tax increment financing to fund urban renewal projects in its urban renewal area compliant with the Act. Plaintiff claimed the Act violates the gift clause provisions of N.D. Const. art. X, section 18, the requirements for imposing taxes in N.D. Const. art. X, sections 3 and 5, and the equal protection provisions of the state and federal constitutions. He also claimed Bismarck's implementation of a perpetual urban renewal plan violated the Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court held the Act is constitutional, but the summary judgment record in this case did not establish whether Bismarck's renewal plan complied with the provisions of the Act. View "Haugland v. City of Bismarck" on Justia Law

On November 1, 2010, after speaking with her financial institution, Capitol Credit Union, and noting suspicious withdrawals from her savings account, Heidi Blum notified the Mandan Police Department about two unauthorized uses of her automated teller machine ("ATM") card. Blum claimed someone used her ATM card at two separate locations in Mandan to withdraw $165 from her bank account without her consent. During her conversation with Capitol Credit Union, Blum learned that Capitol Credit Union had mailed a new ATM card to her address and that it had separately mailed to the same address a corresponding personal identification number. Blum, however, had moved and no longer lived at that address. As part of the investigation, a Mandan police officer learned Defendant Steven Schmidt and his girlfriend resided at the address where Capitol Credit Union had mailed Blum's new ATM card and corresponding personal identification number. Defendant would later be charged with theft for having used the ATM card to make the withdrawals. He appealed his conviction; the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence and his proposed jury instruction, and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his pre-trial motion. View "North Dakota v. Schmidt" on Justia Law

In 2008, Defendant Vicente Chacano was charged with two counts of gross sexual imposition for having sexual contact with a victim less than fifteen years old. Defendant was charged with three additional counts of gross sexual imposition for conduct involving the same victim. The State moved to dismiss one count in the first complaint because the same charge was included in the second complaint. The district court granted the motion. The district court held a preliminary hearing on the charges in both complaints. The district court found probable cause to bind over Defendant for trial, and the State filed an information for each case. The Adams County State's Attorney moved to dismiss all charges against Defendant in 2009. The motion included the written statement: "To prevent a possible miscarriage of justice a further investigation is necessary." Defendant did not object to the dismissal. The district court granted the motion and dismissed all charges without prejudice. Then in 2010, an assistant attorney general filed a complaint charging Defendant with three counts of gross sexual imposition for conduct involving the same victim and the same time period as the 2008 charges. The district court held a preliminary hearing on the 2010 charges. The district court found probable cause to bind over Defendant for trial, and the State filed an information. Defendant moved to dismiss the charges "on the grounds that contrary to the State of North Dakota's representations to [the district court judge] and Defendant no 'further investigation' of the case has been conducted since January 15, 2009 and Defendant is prejudiced by the State of North Dakota['s] failure to honor [its] representation and the refiling of the charges." After a hearing, the district court denied the motion to dismiss. In early 2011, Defendant was tried by a jury. The jury found him guilty of two counts of gross sexual imposition and not guilty of one count of gross sexual imposition. Defendant appealed the district court criminal judgment entered after the jury convicted him. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction: "The plain language of Rule 48(a) [of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure] applies to the dismissal of a criminal charge and does not require the prosecuting attorney to take any specific action before a charge dismissed without prejudice can be refiled. In this case, a state's attorney determined he did not have sufficient evidence to proceed on the 2008 charges and moved to dismiss. . . . A criminal charge dismissed without prejudice may be refiled within the applicable statutory period." View "North Dakota v. Chacano" on Justia Law

Defendant Mitchell Holbach appealed a municipal court judgment that summarily dismissed his application for post-conviction relief. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the judgment was not appealable, but considered Defendant's appeal under its supervisory jurisdiction. Defendant was convicted for driving under suspension and driving without insurance. The arresting officer mistakenly believed Defendant's last name was "Knutson," and a check on "Mitchell Knutson" revealed a bench warrant was out for Knutson's arrest. The officer stopped Defendant on the mistaken identity, discovered his mistake, and learned of Defendant's suspension. Defendant admitted to the officer that he had no insurance. Defendant pled guilty to both offenses in municipal court, and signed and dated an acknowledgement indicating he had been informed of and understood his rights. Several years later, Defendant filed this appeal, alleging his conviction was based on evidence obtained from an unlawful arrest. The Supreme Court held that post-conviction relief under N.D.C.C. ch. 29-32.1 was not available in municipal courts in North Dakota. The Court concluded the judgment was void and directed the municipal court to dismiss Defendant's application. View "Holbach v. City of Minot" on Justia Law

Empower the Taxpayer, Charlene Nelson, and Robert Hale (collectively "Empower") appealed an order dismissing their request for injunctive relief against numerous state and local government officials and other entities. Empower supported North Dakota Initiated Constitutional Measure 2 to abolish property taxes which is on the June 2012 primary election ballot. In February 2012, Empower brought this action seeking injunctive relief against the defendants to prohibit them from, among other things, "advocating any position on Measure 2" and to declare them "no longer eligible to run for public office." Empower alleged the officials and entities had violated provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act by distributing false and misleading information about the effect of Measure 2. The district court dismissed the action, concluding "Empower lacks standing to bring this claim as the Corrupt Practices Act is a criminal law, the Defendants' actions did not violate Empower's legal rights, and the legislature did not imply a private right of action" for violation of the Act's provisions. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding Empower failed to establish that there was a private right of action to enforce provisions of the North Dakota Corrupt Practices Act. View "Empower the Taxpayer v. Fong" on Justia Law