Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner-Appellant Todd Dailey appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 2005, Petitioner was convicted after a jury verdict found him guilty of manslaughter and of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI), his fifth offense in seven years. Petitioner was sentenced to serve five years in prison, with forty-two months suspended for five years, and to pay a $1,000 fine on the DUI conviction. On the manslaughter conviction, he was sentenced to serve ten years in prison and pay a $10,000 fine. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment, concluding the sentence was within the statutory sentencing limits. The sole issue on this appeal was whether Petitioner's sentence was illegal. He contended his "release from incarceration" for purposes of the applicable statute occurred upon completion of the eighteen-month imprisonment on the DUI charge and he therefore could not be sentenced to a period of probation beginning after expiration of the ten-year imprisonment on the manslaughter charge. The Supreme Court concluded that Petitioner's DUI sentence was indeed illegal. The Court reversed the district court's order that denied Petitioner's application and remanded the case for re-sentencing of the DUI conviction. View "Dailey v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant John Engstrom appealed a district court judgment affirming the administrative revocation of his driver's license for four years after his arrest for being in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Petitioner argued the Department of Transportation should not have revoked his driver's license: his constitutional rights were violated because the arresting officer did not have reasonable and articulable suspicion to order Petitioner from his car, and the officer did not have probable cause to place Petitioner under arrest. Because the Supreme Court concluded the police officer in this case had reasonable suspicion to seize and probable cause to arrest Petitioner, it affirm the revocation of Petitioner's license. View "Engstrom v. N.D. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Robert Doyle Jones Jr. appealed a district court order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. He was arrested in March 2011 and charged with three class A misdemeanors: interference with a telephone during an emergency call, criminal mischief, and simple assault (domestic violence, second offense). On appeal, Defendant argued a manifest injustice existed to allow him to withdraw his pleas because: (1) he was not represented by counsel at his arraignment and the district court did not advise him of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation before requiring him to enter his pleas; (2) he was confused by the State's sentencing recommendation; and (3) he previously suffered a traumatic brain injury which has caused him significant cognitive deficiencies. Upon careful review of the district court record, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it found Defendant failed to carry his burden of proof that he be allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas. The Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "North Dakota v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Daniel Humann appealed a district court order requiring sexual offender registration, arguing the district court's findings were insufficient. In 2008, Defendant was charged with possessing child pornography. He pled guilty and sentenced to five years' incarceration with all but one year suspended for five years following his release. After serving his time at the penitentiary, Defendant was released subject to a number of probation conditions. In 2011, the State petitioned to revoke Defendant's probation, alleging Defendant violated his probation by contacting a minor and possessing naked images of her on his cell phone, contacting another minor and possessing her image on his cell phone, possessing numerous images of naked women on his cell phone, having a Facebook account without permission, possessing alcohol, testing positive for marijuana use and failing to report to law enforcement. At the revocation hearing, Defendant admitted all the allegations. The State argued that in addition to revoking his probation, the district court should require Defendant to register as a sexual offender. The district court revoked Defendant's entire suspended sentence and ordered him to register as a sexual offender due to his guilty plea to possession of the prohibited materials. Defendant argued on appeal that the sexual offender registration statute required the district court to make factual findings regarding mental abnormality and predatory conduct. Upon review of the district court record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court found the district court correctly concluded Defendant was required to register as a sex offender and affirmed its decision. View "North Dakota v. Humann" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Dale Gress appealed a district court order that denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. In 2006, Defendant pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault, one count of burglary, two counts of violating a domestic violence protection order, and one count of simple assault. In 2008, Defendant applied for post-conviction relief. After a hearing, this district court denied his application. Defendant never appealed. In 2011, Defendant moved to suspend his sentence "in the interest of Justice" or alternatively, to withdraw his "unconstitutional" plea agreement. Defendant argued his plea was coerced and he did not knowingly enter into the plea agreement and waive his federal constitutional rights, he was not guilty of the charges, and the withdrawal of his plea was in the interests of justice. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The Court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Gress" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order suppressing evidence discovered during a vehicle search following an alert by a drug detection dog. During routine patrol on December 17, 2010, a North Dakota Highway Patrol officer encountered a vehicle stuck in the snow in the median of the interstate. The officer approached the vehicle and made contact with the driver, Defendant Carlos Aguilar, and his passenger, Robert Sanchez. While the officer was checking Defendant's documents, a tow truck arrived and pulled the vehicle out of the ditch. The document check revealed Defendant's and Mr. Sanchez's California driver's licensed were suspended and the vehicle was a rental. The officer arrested Defendant and placed him in the back of her patrol car. When backup officers arrived at the stop, they brought a dog to conduct a sniff of the exterior of the vehicle. The dog indicated it found something, and the officers' search of the vehicle would reveal a bag of methamphetamine and a glass pipe in the vehicle's headliner. Mr. Sanchez was arrested and both men were taken to jail. The district court held a suppression hearing. The only witness was the arresting officer who testified that when she arrested Defendant for driving under suspension, she did not have any suspicion he possessed drugs. She further testified she did not request a drug detection dog when she radioed for assistance and did not ask that the drug detection dog be used. The district court concluded the use of the drug detection dog violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court suppressed the evidence discovered during the initial search due to the Fourth Amendment violation. Finding the search was incident to Defendant's arrest, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred by determining the use of the drug detection dog violated Defendants' Fourth Amendment rights. The Court reversed the district court order granting the suppression motion and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Aguilar" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Kari Ann Schmidt appealed a criminal judgment entered after a bench trial that found her guilty of criminal attempt to possess methamphetamine. Defendant raised the defense of entrapment. The court found she did not present sufficient evidence to establish an entrapment defense and found her guilty. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding substantial evidence existed to warrant the conviction and a rational trier of fact could have found Defendant failed to prove entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence. However, because the judgment erroneously stated that it was entered upon a guilty plea, the Court remanded the case back to the district court to correct this clerical error. View "North Dakota v. Schmidt" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Veronica Trevino appealed a criminal judgment entered after she conditionally pled guilty to reckless driving. The trial court held that reckless driving is a strict liability offense and that Trevino would therefore be precluded from raising the defense of lack of criminal responsibility by statute. Defendant argued on appeal that the trial court erred in concluding that reckless driving was a strict liability offense. Because the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in its decision, the Court reversed the judgment and remanded the for further proceedings to allow Defendant to withdraw her guilty plea. View "North Dakota v. Trevino" on Justia Law

Petitioner Reginald Tweed appealed a district court's order that summarily dismissed his second application for post-conviction relief. Petitioner argued the district court erred in dismissing his application because the claims were not barred by res judicata or a misuse of process and his claims of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel are valid claims. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court properly dismissed Petitioner's evidentiary, ineffective assistance of trial counsel and prosecutorial misconduct claims, but the court erred in summarily dismissing his claim for ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel. View "Tweed v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Defendant Dickey Joseph Cain appealed a district court's criminal judgment and finding of habitual offender status entered after a jury convicted him of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault. Defendant argued the district court erred by (1) denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to introduce sufficient evidence of the agreement required to establish a conspiracy, (2) finding he was a habitual offender based on certified copies of prior convictions at the same proceeding as the sentencing hearing, (3) denying his pretrial motion to dismiss due to violation of his right to a speedy trial and (4) denying his motion in limine to exclude photographs of the victim's injuries. Upon review of the trial court record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment and Defendant's convictions. View "North Dakota v. Cain" on Justia Law