Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Levi Conry was charged with leaving the scene of an accident involving damage to a motor vehicle. Conry entered into a plea agreement with the State and pleaded guilty. As part of the agreement Conry received a deferred imposition of sentence on the charge of leaving the scene of an accident involving damage to a motor vehicle. The district court accepted the plea agreement and imposed conditions on Conry according to the terms of the plea agreement. The order deferring imposition of sentence stated: “The Court reserves jurisdiction to determine restitution within 90 days.” The State subsequently submitted a statement seeking $11,352.93 in restitution. Conry requested a hearing after which the district court entered an order denying the restitution claim in its entirety. The court found the terms of the plea agreement allowed the court to order no restitution. The State appealed that order. Finding that the State had no statutory right to appeal a restitution order in a criminal case, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined it lacked jurisdiction over the State's appeal and dismissed it. View "North Dakota v. Conry" on Justia Law

Amy Vaagen appealed an order revoking her unsupervised probation and imposing a period of confinement. In 2018, Vaagen pleaded guilty to preventing arrest, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The district court deferred imposition of Vaagen’s sentence. The court also ordered Vaagen to submit to random drug urinalysis testing once a week for the duration of her probation. The urinalysis testing condition was orally announced during sentencing but was not included in the original order. In 2019, the district court sua sponte issued an amended order deferring imposition of sentence. The amended order contained the urinalysis condition. Months later, the State petitioned to revoke Vaagen's probation based on alleged violations of the urinalysis testing condition. After a third petition, the court revoked Vaagen’s unsupervised probation. On December 18, 2019, the court sentenced Vaagen to a period of confinement. She appealed, arguing the district court improperly amended the order under which her probation was revoked. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the revocation. View "North Dakota v. Vaagen" on Justia Law

Derek Wisham appeals from an order denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 2014, Wisham was charged with gross sexual imposition and assault. On December 21, 2015, Wisham pled guilty to a charge of sexual imposition, a class B felony, and assault, a class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to ten years of incarceration with all but four years suspended for two years on the sexual imposition charge and one year straight time on the assault charge, with credit for time served on both counts. The State moved for summary judgment on Wisham's application for relief; Wisham failed to timely respond to the State's request. The North Dakota Supreme Court, therefore, affirmed dismissal of his application. View "Wisham v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Marcus Polk was convicted by jury of aggravated assault. He appealed. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded sufficient evidence of serious bodily injury supported Polk’s conviction for aggravated assault. Furthermore, the Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded testimony from three Fargo police officers. View "North Dakota v. Polk" on Justia Law

Joan Gates appealed a district court order denying her motion for summary judgment filed in her criminal case. In 2013, a jury found Gates guilty of misapplication of entrusted property, a class B felony, for her actions while she was personal representative of the Estate of Lela Gates. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded Gates’ appellate brief failed to provide the Court with a reasonable opportunity to address any alleged errors made by the district court. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. View "North Dakota v. Gates" on Justia Law

Kyle Christianson appealed a district court’s judgment affirming the North Dakota Department of Transportation’s suspension of his driving privileges based on his conviction in Canada for a driving under the influence offense. Christianson argued the Department lacked jurisdiction because the Canadian statute did not define an equivalent offense, and that the hearing officer failed to provide a fair and impartial hearing. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the Department’s suspension and disqualification of Christianson’s noncommercial and commercial driving privileges. View "Christianson v. NDDOT" on Justia Law

Corey Jundt appealed a district court judgment affirming an administrative hearing officer’s decision to suspend Jundt’s driving privileges for 180 days for driving under the influence. Jundt argued the hearing officer erred in suspending his driving privileges because the arresting officer failed to read him the implied consent advisory. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the implied consent requirements of N.D.C.C. 39-20-01 did not apply when an individual consented to a chemical test. View "Jundt v. NDDOT" on Justia Law

Ashley Hunter appealed an order denying his application for post- conviction relief. Hunter was charged with two counts of murder and one count of arson. After a nine-day jury trial, he was found guilty of all charges. On appeal, he argued the district court abused its discretion in determining res judicata barred his claim of judicial bias, and that he did not receive a Miranda warning. Hunter also argued the district court erred in denying his claims for ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hunter v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Kimberly Long appealed following her conditional guilty plea to refusal to submit to a chemical test, a class B misdemeanor. Long argued N.D.C.C. 39-08-01(1)(f) was ambiguous, and the legislative history required a driver to be informed of their right to refuse to take a test to determine their blood alcohol content. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded N.D.C.C. 39-08-01(1)(f) was not ambiguous and did not require a driver to be informed of a right to refuse to submit to a chemical test to determine their blood alcohol content, therefore affirming judgment. View "North Dakota v. Long" on Justia Law

Benjamin Suelzle appealed a district court judgment affirming a Department of Transportation hearing officer’s decision revoking his driving privileges for two years. Suelzle argued the hearing officer erred: (1) by finding the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to arrest under N.D.C.C. 39-08-01; (2) by admitting a supplemental report and notice form; and (3) by failing to exclude evidence of his test refusal because he was not given a valid implied consent advisory. Specifically, he contended he could not be lawfully arrested under N.D.C.C. 39-08-01 because the alleged actual physical control occurred on the grassy yard of his private residence, which was an improved private residential lot and not a place to which the public has access. The hearing officer rejected Suelzle’s argument that his vehicle was located on private property to which the officer could have no reasonable grounds to believe the public would have a right of access for vehicular use. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded after review of the Department hearing and district court record that although there was evidence in the record that Suelzle drove under the influence on areas where the public had a right of access before parking on his lawn, he was not charged with driving under the influence. He was charged only with actual physical control of his pickup where it was ultimately parked on his residential grass lawn. The hearing officer’s finding was based on a misapplication of law, and it was not supported by evidence in the record sufficient to show the location of the actual physical control offense was within the scope of N.D.C.C. 39-08-01. The district court's judgment affirming the hearing officer's revocation of Suelzle's driving privileges was reversed. View "Suelzle v. NDDOT" on Justia Law