Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Joshua McCleary was charged with multiple counts of theft, burglary, criminal mischief, and conspiracy related to a series of thefts between December 2020 and January 2021. At the time of these charges, McCleary was already incarcerated for previous convictions. He filed a request for a speedy trial under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (UMDDA), which requires a trial within ninety days unless good cause is shown for a delay. McCleary was paroled but remained in custody due to failure to post bail on the new charges.The District Court of Barnes County denied McCleary's motions to dismiss, stating that the UMDDA's ninety-day period no longer applied once he was released from the state penitentiary on parole. McCleary conditionally pled guilty to seven counts, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motions to dismiss. The court entered a judgment noting the conditional nature of the pleas.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. McCleary argued that his case should have been brought to trial within the ninety-day period under the UMDDA because he remained in state custody. The court held that the UMDDA did not apply once McCleary was paroled, as he was no longer serving a prison sentence but was a detainee due to not posting bail. The court also found that McCleary waived any procedural defects regarding the habitual offender status by stipulating that the statutory requirements were met. Lastly, the court determined that the judgment did not need correction to specify the conditional nature of the plea, as it was clear on the face of the judgment.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment. View "State v. McCleary" on Justia Law

On December 19, 2023, Lee Meiers was arrested for driving under the influence. The arresting officer read Meiers the implied consent advisory and conducted a chemical breath test, which showed an alcohol concentration above the legal limit. The officer completed and certified a report and notice form, printed and signed the test record and checklist, and provided copies to Meiers and the North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT). However, the officer did not certify the test record and checklist before forwarding it to the NDDOT.Meiers requested an administrative hearing, where he objected to the admission of the uncertified test record and checklist, arguing that it was not certified as required by N.D.C.C. § 39-20-03.1, and thus the NDDOT lacked authority to suspend his driving privileges. The hearing officer overruled the objection, admitted the test record and checklist, and suspended Meiers’s driving privileges for 180 days. Meiers appealed to the District Court of Mountrail County, which reversed the hearing officer’s decision, concluding that a certified copy of the test record and checklist was required to invoke the NDDOT’s authority.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s judgment. The Supreme Court held that the requirement in N.D.C.C. § 39-20-03.1(4) for the test record and checklist to be certified is not a basic and mandatory provision that impacts the NDDOT’s authority to suspend a driver’s privileges. The court emphasized that the certification requirement is for evidentiary purposes and can be accomplished through other means. Therefore, the NDDOT had the authority to suspend Meiers’s driving privileges despite the lack of certification on the test record and checklist. The Supreme Court reinstated the NDDOT’s decision to suspend Meiers’s driving privileges. View "Meiers v. NDDOT" on Justia Law

Nicholas Caspers pled guilty to murder in November 2010 and was sentenced to fifteen years’ incarceration with seven years suspended and five years of probation. He was released on probation in August 2017. The State filed four petitions to revoke his probation. The first petition was denied in February 2020, with the court amending his probation to include mandatory participation in a sobriety program. The second petition was denied in September 2020, but the court amended the judgment to include sixty days of incarceration. The third petition was granted in November 2022, revoking his probation and resentencing him to thirty months of probation. The fourth petition was granted in October 2023, revoking his probation and sentencing him to serve the seven suspended years of incarceration.Caspers moved for correction of his sentence in February 2024, arguing that the September 2020 and November 2022 judgments were illegal, and that the October 2023 judgment should be vacated. The district court granted his motion in part, awarding him credit for thirty days, but denied the remaining requests for relief.On appeal, Caspers argued that the October 2023 judgment was illegal because it followed an impermissible third revocation of his probation. The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the September 2020 proceedings did not result in a revocation of probation but rather an intermediate sanction. The court concluded that Caspers was not subject to an impermissible third revocation of probation in October 2023 and affirmed the district court's order. View "State v. Caspers" on Justia Law

Jason Thompson was charged with two counts of terrorizing, one count of criminal trespass, and one count of disorderly conduct due to his actions at two bars in Mandan. During the trial, the State presented video evidence from an officer’s body camera to demonstrate Thompson’s intent. Thompson objected to the video evidence, arguing it was irrelevant, prejudicial, and violated rules against character evidence and hearsay. The district court overruled his objections and admitted the video evidence. The jury found Thompson guilty on all counts, and he appealed.The District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, presided over by Judge Bonnie L. Storbakken, conducted the trial. Thompson’s objections to the video evidence were overruled, and the jury convicted him on all charges. Thompson appealed the decision, arguing that the district court erred in admitting the video evidence, limiting his cross-examination of the victims, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the video evidence, as it was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. The court also found that the district court did not err in limiting Thompson’s cross-examination of the victims, as the questions were either irrelevant or had been sufficiently answered. Finally, the court concluded that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdicts. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the criminal judgment. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Kyle Woodman was charged with three counts of gross sexual imposition in Stark County, North Dakota, in April 2022. A jury trial was held in September 2023, and Woodman was found guilty on all counts. In January 2024, the district court sentenced him to twenty years in prison for count one (with all but five years suspended for ten years), and seven and a half years each for counts two and three, with all sentences running consecutively.Woodman appealed, arguing that the district court committed obvious error by not including the essential element that the crimes occurred in North Dakota in the jury instructions, that the prosecutor committed obvious error during closing arguments by creating evidence, incorporating personal beliefs, and vouching for witnesses, and that the district court relied on an impermissible factor (a pending charge) in determining the severity of his sentence.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It concluded that Woodman failed to establish obvious error regarding the jury instructions, as the instructions, when read together, adequately informed the jury that the offenses had to occur in Stark County, North Dakota. The court also found that Woodman did not demonstrate that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments constituted obvious error affecting his substantial rights, as the jury was instructed to rely on their own recollection of the evidence and disregard any unsupported statements by the attorneys. Lastly, the court determined that Woodman did not show that the district court substantially relied on the pending charge in determining the severity of his sentence.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the amended criminal judgment. View "State v. Woodman" on Justia Law

Ryan Eldon Greene was charged with eleven sexual offenses involving his 15-year-old daughter, who was visiting him in North Dakota during the summer of 2023. The charges included luring minors by computers, incest, corruption of a minor, sexual assault, and solicitation of a minor. Greene pled guilty to all charges on an open plea basis, and the district court sentenced him to a total of 50 years' imprisonment, with some sentences suspended subject to probation.The District Court of Grand Forks County accepted Greene's guilty plea, finding a sufficient factual basis for all charges. Greene was sentenced to five years for each of the ten class C felonies, to run consecutively, and 227 days for the class A misdemeanor, with credit for time served. The sentences for five of the felonies were suspended, contingent on Greene completing ten years of supervised probation.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed Greene's appeal, in which he argued that his convictions and sentences were multiplicitous and violated the Fifth Amendment, and that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The court held that by pleading guilty, Greene waived his right to appeal on the grounds of multiplicity. Additionally, the court found that Greene's sentence was within statutory limits and not grossly disproportionate to the offenses committed. The court concluded that Greene's sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment or the North Dakota Constitution.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the criminal judgment, upholding Greene's convictions and sentences. View "State v. Greene" on Justia Law

In December 2021, Jordan Juneau was charged in Wells County with attempted murder, armed robbery, and burglary. Later that month, he was charged in Stutsman County with unauthorized use of personal identifying information. In July 2022, he faced additional charges in Stutsman County for theft of property and criminal mischief. On May 10, 2023, Juneau entered Alford pleas in the Stutsman County cases based on a binding plea agreement, which stipulated he would not receive a sentence exceeding four years. The district court accepted his pleas but deferred sentencing to a different judge, who could accept or reject the plea agreement.At the August 24, 2023 hearing, the sentencing judge treated Juneau’s plea as an open plea and sentenced him to five years, exceeding the agreed-upon four-year limit. Juneau applied for postconviction relief in September 2023, arguing his sentence was illegal as it did not adhere to the plea agreement. The State did not oppose a remand for further dispositional hearings. However, the district court denied Juneau’s application, finding the nature of the plea agreement unclear and concluding he failed to establish his sentence was illegal.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and found the district court’s determination that Juneau’s plea agreement was unclear to be clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court held that Juneau’s sentence was illegal because it did not comply with the binding plea agreement. The court reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case, instructing the lower court to determine the terms of the plea agreement and either accept or reject it in compliance with Rule 11(c). If the terms cannot be determined, Juneau must be allowed to withdraw his pleas in the relevant case. View "Juneau v. State" on Justia Law

Barry Lindeman was convicted of gross sexual imposition in January 2021 and sentenced to forty-five years imprisonment with ten years suspended, along with fifty years of probation. On direct appeal, the conviction and sentence were summarily affirmed. In February 2022, Lindeman filed an application for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. He argued that his trial attorneys failed to file a motion to suppress his confessions and did not request funding to retain an expert witness to testify about the veracity of the confessions.The District Court of Ward County granted the State’s motion for summary disposition, finding that Lindeman failed to present a genuine issue of material fact regarding his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or substantial prejudice resulting from the alleged ineffective assistance.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Lindeman did not provide any evidence that he was substantially prejudiced by his counsel's alleged ineffectiveness. Specifically, Lindeman did not explain why or how he would have prevailed on a motion to suppress his confessions. Additionally, he failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the failure to retain an expert witness, as he did not demonstrate how the expert's testimony would have been favorable or affected the trial's outcome. The court concluded that Lindeman's conclusory allegations were insufficient to support his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Lindeman v. State" on Justia Law

Charles Werner was charged with DUI–.08% or greater–1st offense and simple assault, both class B misdemeanors. He filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing that law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle and that the subsequent interview was an improper custodial interrogation. The district court held an evidentiary hearing where the arresting officer testified, and bodycam footage was reviewed.The District Court of McHenry County denied Werner’s motion to suppress. Werner then entered a conditional guilty plea to the DUI charge, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. The simple assault charge was dismissed. The court entered a judgment on the DUI charge, which was later amended to reflect the conditional nature of the plea.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that law enforcement had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Werner’s vehicle based on the information provided by the victim and the circumstances observed by the officers. The court also found that Werner was not subject to an unlawful custodial interrogation, as he was not formally arrested, was told he was not under arrest, and was not restrained or isolated during the questioning. The court held that the district court’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and were not clearly erroneous. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "State v. Werner" on Justia Law

In 2018, Kevin Hoff pled guilty to murder and was sentenced to life without parole. Since his conviction, Hoff has filed three applications for postconviction relief. His first application, filed in May 2020, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence. The amended application, which abandoned the newly discovered evidence claim, was denied, and the denial was affirmed on appeal. Hoff's second application, filed in December 2021, claimed his trial counsel incorrectly advised him about the defense of others. The State moved to dismiss this application as time-barred and for summary disposition based on res judicata and misuse of process. The district court granted the State's motions, and Hoff did not appeal.Hoff's third application claimed a mental disease excepted him from the two-year limitation, his trial counsel incorrectly advised him, and newly discovered evidence existed. He also filed a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate the order denying his second application. The district court consolidated the Rule 60(b) motion with the third application and held an evidentiary hearing. The court granted the State's motion to dismiss based on the two-year limitation, granted the State's motion for summary disposition based on res judicata and misuse of process, denied Hoff's application, and dismissed his Rule 60(b) motion.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the sequestration order did not apply to all witnesses and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a witness to testify. The court also held that Hoff's third application for postconviction relief was precluded by the two-year limitation and that Hoff did not demonstrate he met the exception for a physical disability or mental disease. The court did not address the res judicata and misuse of process claims, as the application was already precluded by the two-year limitation. View "Hoff v. State" on Justia Law