Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Steven Evans appealed from a Kidder County district court order denying his motion to amend judgment, and from a Burleigh County district court order denying his motion for reconsideration of its order that denied his motion to amend judgment. Defendant was sentenced in Kidder County to three years' imprisonment on charges of burglary and theft of property. He had criminal charges related to the same incident pending in Burleigh County at that time. At sentencing, the Kidder County State's Attorney recommended the Kidder County sentences run concurrently to the sentences Defendant would ultimately receive in Burleigh County. The Kidder County district court informed Defendant several times it could not bind the Burleigh County district court to run its sentences concurrently to the Kidder County sentences, and Defendant stated he understood. The Kidder County criminal judgment ordered Defendant's sentences "shall run concurrently and concurrently with [the] Burleigh County Case[s]." Defendant was subsequently sentenced in Burleigh County to five years' imprisonment with all but 180 days suspended on the charge of fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer, and 180 days' imprisonment on the charge of possession of marijuana by a driver. The Burleigh County criminal judgment ordered the sentences to run concurrently to each other but consecutively to Defendant's Kidder County sentences. Defendant filed motions to amend judgment in both counties and a motion to reconsider in Burleigh County, all of which were denied. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Kidder County order denying Defendant's motion to amend judgment, but remanded and directed the Kidder County district court to correct its criminal judgment by deleting the provision that ordered the Kidder County sentences to run concurrently to the Burleigh County sentences. View "North Dakota v. Evans" on Justia Law

Defendants Andrew and Ricky Mittleider appealed a district court's judgment entered on their conditional guilty pleas relating to to illegal hunting, taking (or attempting to take) possession of big game, and hunting in a closed or restricted area. The Mittleiders moved to suppress all evidence entered against them at trial, arguing that the Game Warden and other law enforcement officials violated their reasonable expectation of privacy by entering their property to confiscate the weapon used to shoot the deer, photos taken of the deer and the deer itself because they had "no trespassing" signs posted. Defendants also filed a motion in limine to offer an affirmative defense of "mistake of fact": that they reasonably believed they were not hunting on a refuge because signs were not properly posted. The district court denied their motions, and Defendants appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Defendants' "no trespassing" signs did not created a reasonable expectation of privacy in the entrance of their property. As such, their right to a reasonable expectation of privacy was not violated. The Court affirmed the district court in all other respects. View "North Dakota v. Mittleider" on Justia Law

"J.T.N." appealed a district court order which found he remained a sexually dangerous individual and that denied his petition for discharge from the North Dakota State Hospital. On appeal to the Supreme Court, J.T.N. argued the district court erred by denying his discharge petition because five of the six experts testified he was not a sexually dangerous individual. He did not contest the findings that he engaged in sexually predatory conduct and that he had an antisocial personality disorder. He argued the findings that he was likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct and that he had serious difficulty controlling his behavior were clearly erroneous. The State responded that the district court's findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence. Finding that the district court did not apply an erroneous view of the law in determining J.T.N. remained a sexually dangerous individual, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court and J.T.N.'s continued commitment. View "Matter of J.T.N." on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Ernest Coppage appealed an order dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. Petitioner argued the district court erred in dismissing his application and he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing because there were genuine issues of material fact about his ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel claim. In 2006, Petitioner was charged with attempted murder. Before trial, the district court issued preliminary jury instructions to the parties including the essential elements of attempted murder and aggravated assault. Aggravated assault was characterized in the instructions as a lesser-included offense of attempted murder. The parties agreed these charges were the proper charges for the jury to consider. Petitioner filed a pre-trial motion in limine to prevent the State from seeking to introduce testimony about prior incidents of domestic violence. The State did not object and the district court granted the motion. The jury found Petitioner guilty of both attempted murder and aggravated assault. Petitioner appealed his conviction, arguing there was not sufficient evidence to support his attempted murder conviction and the verdict form was logically and legally inconsistent because proof of attempted murder negates a necessary element of aggravated assault. In 2009, the district court denied Petitioner's application for post-conviction relief which he did not appeal. In 2010, Petitioner filed his second application. Petitioner presented evidence that his failure to raise evidentiary and prosecutorial misconduct issues in prior proceedings was excusable because his post-conviction counsel was ineffective, which raised a genuine issue of material fact. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the court erred in summarily dismissing Petitioner's claims without holding an evidentiary hearing. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Coppage v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

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