Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Kareem Lee Byrd, Jr. was charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder. He entered an Alford plea to the conspiracy charge, and the murder charge was dismissed. Byrd was sentenced to twenty-five years, with five years suspended. He later filed for postconviction relief, arguing that he was convicted of a non-cognizable offense, his plea was not knowing and voluntary, and he received ineffective assistance of counsel.The District Court of Cass County denied Byrd’s application for postconviction relief. The court found that Byrd failed to show his Alford plea was not knowing or voluntary, failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, and failed to demonstrate that withdrawal of his plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice. Byrd appealed the decision.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Byrd was convicted of a cognizable offense because he pled guilty to conspiracy to commit intentional murder, which is a cognizable offense. The court found that a sufficient factual basis supported Byrd’s plea and that his plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The court also concluded that Byrd failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, as he did not demonstrate that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different but for his counsel’s alleged errors. View "Byrd v. State" on Justia Law

Joshua Gomez was charged with multiple offenses in 2006, including criminal trespass, stalking, violation of a disorderly conduct restraining order, and gross sexual imposition (GSI). He pled guilty to all counts and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms, with a significant portion of the GSI sentence suspended and a probation period imposed. In 2018, after violating probation, his probation was revoked, and he was resentenced to 50 years with a substantial portion suspended, and credited for time served.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, handled the initial sentencing and the probation revocation. Gomez appealed the revocation and resentencing, which was summarily affirmed. In 2024, Gomez moved to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his resentencing exceeded the original suspended sentence and that he should receive credit for time spent in civil commitment at the State Hospital. The district court partially granted his motion, correcting the sentence but denying credit for the civil commitment time.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision to exclude the time Gomez spent at the State Hospital from his sentence credit, as it was not directly related to the criminal charge. However, the court remanded the case for the district court to consider Gomez's argument regarding good time credit, which was not adequately addressed in the lower court's judgment. The Supreme Court emphasized that the judgment must explicitly state any good time credit accrued. View "State v. Gomez" on Justia Law

In October 2022, officers responded to a shooting in Bismarck, North Dakota, where Christopher Sebastian was found dead in a vehicle with multiple gunshot wounds. Benjamin Williams was charged with murder and unlawful possession of a firearm. Evidence collected included a black sweatshirt, face mask, glove, jeans, a .40 caliber pistol, cartridges, and ammunition magazines. Williams's trial began on April 1, 2024, and after six days, the jury found him guilty of both charges. He was sentenced to life without parole for murder and five years for unlawful possession of a firearm, to be served concurrently. Williams appealed the decision.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, denied Williams's motion to exclude new witness testimony not disclosed by the State before the trial. Williams argued that the State's failure to provide new information about the witness's testimony constituted a Brady violation. The court found that Williams could have obtained the information with reasonable diligence and thus did not establish a Brady violation. Additionally, Williams's motion for sanctions regarding the State's failure to disclose a forensic examiner's employment records was denied, as the issue was not preserved for review.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The court held that there was no Brady violation regarding the new witness testimony, as Williams had the opportunity to obtain the information with reasonable diligence. The court also declined to address the alleged Brady violation related to the forensic examiner's employment records, as it was not preserved for review. Lastly, the court found no prosecutorial misconduct in the State's closing arguments and concluded that Williams was not denied due process. The district court's judgment was affirmed. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

In May 2024, Darren Hoistad was arrested for driving under the influence and consented to a chemical breath test, which showed a result above the legal limit of 0.08. During the test, the arresting officer instructed Hoistad to continue blowing into the Intoxilyzer 8000 even after the tone stopped and the instrument displayed a zero before the decimal point. Hoistad argued that this deviation from the approved method rendered the test results inadmissible.The hearing officer overruled Hoistad’s objection and suspended his driving privileges for 91 days. Hoistad appealed to the District Court of Richland County, Southeast Judicial District, which affirmed the hearing officer’s decision. The court found that the Intoxilyzer test was administered in accordance with the approved method and that the deviation did not affect the test's accuracy.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the hearing officer’s finding that the test was conducted in accordance with the approved method was not supported by the evidence. The court noted that the approved method requires the subject to stop blowing when the tone stops, and the officer’s repeated instructions to continue blowing constituted a deviation from the approved method. The court held that the Department of Transportation failed to provide expert testimony on the effect of this deviation on the test’s accuracy and reliability. Consequently, the court determined that the test was not fairly administered and the hearing officer abused his discretion in admitting the test results.The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment and the hearing officer’s decision to suspend Hoistad’s driving privileges. However, the court denied Hoistad’s request for attorney’s fees and costs, concluding that the Department acted with substantial justification in its decision. View "Hoistad v. NDDOT" on Justia Law

In October 2022, officers responded to a shooting in Bismarck, North Dakota, where Christopher Sebastian was found dead in a vehicle with multiple gunshot wounds. Benjamin Williams was charged with murder and unlawful possession of a firearm. Evidence collected included a black sweatshirt, face mask, glove, jeans, a .40 caliber pistol, cartridges, and ammunition magazines. Williams's trial began on April 1, 2024, and after six days, the jury found him guilty of both charges. He was sentenced to life without parole for murder and five years for unlawful possession of a firearm, to be served concurrently. Williams appealed the decision.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, presided over by Judge Cynthia M. Feland, denied Williams's motion to exclude new witness testimony that was not disclosed by the State before the trial. Williams argued that the State's failure to provide this information constituted a Brady violation. The court also rejected Williams's claim of prosecutorial misconduct and his motion for sanctions regarding the non-disclosure of a witness's personnel file.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that no Brady violation occurred because Williams could have obtained the information with reasonable diligence. The court also found that the State did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, as the statements made were fair comments on the evidence. Additionally, the court declined to address the merits of the claim regarding the non-disclosure of the witness's personnel file, as the issue was not preserved for review. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's judgment. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

Cory Almklov was charged with multiple offenses, including attempted murder, aggravated assault, burglary, and theft of property. His cases were joined for trial, and he was convicted and sentenced to twenty-five years for attempted murder, with other sentences running concurrently. His convictions were affirmed on appeal.Almklov filed a pro se application for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel among other grounds. The State moved for summary disposition, arguing that there were no material facts in dispute and that Almklov's claims were barred by res judicata and misuse of process. The district court granted the State's motion, dismissing Almklov's application with prejudice, finding he failed to provide evidence supporting his claims of ineffective assistance.On appeal to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, Almklov argued that the district court erred in dismissing his application without an evidentiary hearing. He claimed his counsel was ineffective for failing to call two witnesses, object to the joinder of his cases, and file a motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement. The court noted that ineffective assistance claims are typically not suited for summary disposition without a hearing but affirmed the lower court's decision because Almklov did not provide any evidence to support his claims.The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that Almklov failed to meet his burden of proof for his ineffective assistance claims. He did not show what the uncalled witnesses would have testified, how the joinder of cases prejudiced him, or that a motion to suppress would have been successful. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's summary dismissal of Almklov's postconviction relief application. View "Almklov v. State" on Justia Law

In February 2024, Cailin Leann Gackle was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. At the police department, Officer Cullen Hall conducted two breath test sequences using the Intoxilyzer 8000. The first test sequence was invalidated due to a "Difference Too Great" between the two samples. Officer Hall began the second test sequence 18 minutes after the first test ended, instead of the required 20 minutes. Gackle's driving privileges were suspended for 365 days based on the results of the second test.Gackle requested an administrative hearing, arguing that the breath test was not fairly administered because Officer Hall did not comply with the 20-minute waiting period required by the approved method. The hearing officer overruled her objection, admitted the test records, and upheld the suspension. Gackle appealed to the District Court of Ward County, which affirmed the Department of Transportation's decision.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the Department failed to establish the fair administration of the breath test. The court determined that the approved method requires a 20-minute wait before beginning a new test sequence after an invalid test. Since Officer Hall only waited 18 minutes, the test was not administered in accordance with the approved method. The court held that without expert testimony to address the deviation, the test results could not be considered reliable. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case to the Department for reinstatement of Gackle's driving privileges. View "Gackle v. NDDOT" on Justia Law

Coby Edwards was charged with class AA felony gross sexual imposition for allegedly engaging in a sexual act with a five-year-old child. The State intended to use statements made by the child during a recorded interview and a forensic medical examination, which were admitted under an exception to the hearsay rule. During the trial, various witnesses, including the child, testified. Edwards's counsel mentioned difficulties in communication due to Edwards's pretrial detention and failed to call an expert witness. The jury found Edwards guilty, and the conviction was affirmed on appeal.Edwards then filed for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. He argued that his counsel's references to the child as "the victim," failure to object to hearsay, and failure to call an expert witness constituted ineffective representation. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the application, finding that the counsel's decisions were strategic and that Edwards did not demonstrate how an expert witness would have changed the outcome. The court also found that the references to the child as a victim were deficient but did not prejudice the trial's outcome.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Edwards failed to show a reasonable probability that the trial outcome would have been different without the alleged deficiencies in his counsel's performance. The court noted that the evidence against Edwards, including the child's testimony and statements, was substantial and that the counsel's errors did not undermine confidence in the trial's outcome. View "Edwards v. State" 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.In his third application, Hoff 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 Hoff's third application was barred by the two-year limitation in N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(2) and that Hoff did not demonstrate a physical disability or mental disease that precluded timely assertion of his application. The court also concluded that Hoff waived the issue of the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion by not adequately briefing it on appeal. The court did not address the res judicata and misuse of process arguments, as the application was already precluded by the two-year limitation. View "Hoff v. State" on Justia Law

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