Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A jury found Kevin Decker guilty of disorderly conduct. Decker argued on appeal the district court created a structural error by denying his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial when court staff excluded one member of the public from jury selection proceedings. He also argued the State presented insufficient evidence for the jury to find him guilty of disorderly conduct. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding the district court's exclusion of one member of the public was too trivial to amount to structural error and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. View "North Dakota v. Decker" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order granting Tyler Fleckenstein's motion to suppress. Fleckenstein was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (third offense). Fleckenstein moved to suppress the blood test. At the motion hearing, only the arresting officer testified. The district court concluded that the consent to the blood test was involuntary and granted the motion to suppress the blood test. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court misapplied the law by ruling Fleckenstein's consent to a blood test was per se involuntary and thus did not consider the totality of the circumstances. The Court reversed the district court's order and remanded for additional findings of fact and a determination of voluntariness on the basis of the totality of the circumstances. View "North Dakota v. Fleckenstein" on Justia Law

Aaron Bruce appealed a district court's amended criminal judgment awarding restitution. In December 2015, the State charged Bruce with unlawful manufacturing, delivering, or possession with intent to deliver heroin; manslaughter; tampering in a criminal investigation; ingestion of a controlled substance; and theft of property. The charges arose from an incident in July 2015. In March 2017, pursuant to an agreement, the State amended the manslaughter charge to negligent homicide, and dismissed three of the charges. Bruce pled guilty to negligent homicide and manufacturing, delivering, or possession with intent to deliver heroin. The State requested $6,165 for funeral expenses for Aidan Vanderhoef, the victim of the negligent homicide charge, $500 for a cell phone that was allegedly stolen from Vanderhoef, and $492.20 for his father's transportation costs to and from the court proceedings. The court ordered Bruce to pay restitution in the amount of $7,157.20. Bruce argues the district court abused its discretion in ordering restitution for funeral expenses, a cell phone, and transportation costs to and from the court proceedings for Vanderhoef's father. Bruce also argues the district court abused its discretion when ordering restitution without considering his ability to pay. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the restitution award. View "North Dakota v. Bruce" on Justia Law

Charles Koenig appealed a district court order denying his motion for entry of default judgment and summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. In November 2015, a criminal complaint was filed against Koenig, alleging two counts of possession of a controlled substance and two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia. On December 15, 2015, Koenig filed a speedy trial request. On January 6, 2016, a preliminary hearing was held. Probable cause was found on all counts followed by arraignment where a criminal information mirroring the complaint with the addition of a witness list was filed. On that same date, the prosecuting attorney recognized and informed the court of Koenig's December 15, 2015 request for speedy trial. Koenig made a second request for speedy trial. On April 1, 2016, a jury trial was held and Koenig was found guilty on all counts. On July 22, 2016, Koenig was sentenced to a total of eighteen months and two years of supervised probation commencing upon release from incarceration. On January 13, 2017, Koenig filed an application for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct because he was denied his right to speedy trial. Koenig also argued his conviction on count 1 (possession of a controlled substance) was obtained through circumstantial evidence. The application was docketed January 19, 2017, and served on the state's attorney's office on January 23, 2017. On February 22, 2017, Koenig filed a notice, motion, brief, and affidavit for default judgment. On February 23, 2017, the State filed an answer to Koenig's application for post-conviction relief. On February 24, 2017, the State filed a response to the motion for default judgment and a motion to dismiss for misuse of process. On March 20, 2017, Koenig filed a response to the State's motion to dismiss. On May 9, 2017, the district court filed a memorandum containing an order denying Koenig's motion for entry of default judgment, an order denying the State's motion to dismiss for misuse of process, and an order for summary disposition of Koenig's application for post-conviction relief. Koenig argued to the North Dakota Supreme Court he was entitled to default judgment because the State's response to his application for post-conviction relief was untimely. Further, Koenig argued the district court misapplied the law when it determined his election of a speedy trial right was not timely. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding Koenig failed to show any real prejudice as a result of the delayed response. Koenig's trial was within 90 days of arraignment, thus his argument under N.D.C.C. 29-19-02 failed. View "Koenig v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Marlon Comes appealed a district court order summarily dismissing his post-conviction relief petition and a court order denying his motion for a new trial. In 1995, the State charged Comes with murder, a class AA felony and robbery, a class A felony. Comes received court-appointed counsel. In 1996, Comes pled guilty to both crimes. The district court sentenced Comes to life imprisonment at the North Dakota Department of Corrections with the possibility of parole, and a concurrent 10 years for robbery, with 307 days credit for time served. In 2017, Comes filed a pro se application for post-conviction relief, claiming he would be subjected to an ex post facto punishment in violation of the U.S. Const. art. I, section 10 because his original sentence was life with the possibility of parole after 85 percent of 30 years had been served. Using that calculation, Comes argued he would be eligible for a parole hearing in June 2021, if no good time was given to him prior to that date. Comes believed he would not receive a parole hearing until August 2041, which he argued violates his constitutional rights. From the face of the record, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined Comes did not file his post-conviction relief within the two-year time limit established by N.D.C.C. 29-32.1-09(1). Therefore, his post-conviction relief application was beyond the statute of limitations, unless one of the exceptions applies. The State did not raise the statute of limitations as a defense prior to the district court dismissing the petition. Because the State did not raise the two-year statute of limitations under N.D.C.C. 29-32.1-09(1), the defense was waived. Comes argued to the Supreme Court his claim for post-conviction relief was not time barred because the retroactive application of N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 51 would not occur until June 2021. The Supreme Court agreed Comes' application was not time barred, but neither was it ripe for review. As correctly pointed out by the district court, all the case law argued by Comes was more than two years old, so it did not meet the requirement under N.D.C.C. 29-32.1-01(3)(b). However, at some point in the future, when Comes can show he was being unlawfully restrained based on the sentence imposed, he will have the right to file for post-conviction relief under N.D.C.C. 29-32.1-01(g). The Supreme Court dismissed Comes’ appeal. View "Comes v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Marlon Comes appealed a district court order summarily dismissing his post-conviction relief petition and a court order denying his motion for a new trial. In 1995, the State charged Comes with murder, a class AA felony and robbery, a class A felony. Comes received court-appointed counsel. In 1996, Comes pled guilty to both crimes. The district court sentenced Comes to life imprisonment at the North Dakota Department of Corrections with the possibility of parole, and a concurrent 10 years for robbery, with 307 days credit for time served. In 2017, Comes filed a pro se application for post-conviction relief, claiming he would be subjected to an ex post facto punishment in violation of the U.S. Const. art. I, section 10 because his original sentence was life with the possibility of parole after 85 percent of 30 years had been served. Using that calculation, Comes argued he would be eligible for a parole hearing in June 2021, if no good time was given to him prior to that date. Comes believed he would not receive a parole hearing until August 2041, which he argued violates his constitutional rights. From the face of the record, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined Comes did not file his post-conviction relief within the two-year time limit established by N.D.C.C. 29-32.1-09(1). Therefore, his post-conviction relief application was beyond the statute of limitations, unless one of the exceptions applies. The State did not raise the statute of limitations as a defense prior to the district court dismissing the petition. Because the State did not raise the two-year statute of limitations under N.D.C.C. 29-32.1-09(1), the defense was waived. Comes argued to the Supreme Court his claim for post-conviction relief was not time barred because the retroactive application of N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 51 would not occur until June 2021. The Supreme Court agreed Comes' application was not time barred, but neither was it ripe for review. As correctly pointed out by the district court, all the case law argued by Comes was more than two years old, so it did not meet the requirement under N.D.C.C. 29-32.1-01(3)(b). However, at some point in the future, when Comes can show he was being unlawfully restrained based on the sentence imposed, he will have the right to file for post-conviction relief under N.D.C.C. 29-32.1-01(g). The Supreme Court dismissed Comes’ appeal. View "Comes v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Donald Weisz appealed a district court's criminal judgment and the order denying his motion to suppress evidence. Weisz was arrested for being in actual physical control of a vehicle while intoxicated. Weisz entered a conditional plea of guilty. Weisz argued that because the City of Bismarck lacked probable cause to arrest him, the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding there was sufficient competent evidence of probable cause to arrest Weisz for being in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. View "City of Bismarck v. Weisz" on Justia Law

Donald Weisz appealed a district court's criminal judgment and the order denying his motion to suppress evidence. Weisz was arrested for being in actual physical control of a vehicle while intoxicated. Weisz entered a conditional plea of guilty. Weisz argued that because the City of Bismarck lacked probable cause to arrest him, the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding there was sufficient competent evidence of probable cause to arrest Weisz for being in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. View "City of Bismarck v. Weisz" on Justia Law

Martin Blackcloud (a/ka/ Black Cloud) appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. In April 2014, Blackcloud was convicted of gross sexual imposition, in which the victim was his girlfriend's daughter. Blackcloud previously appealed that criminal judgment to the North Dakota Supreme Court based on an alibi defense, and the Supreme Court summarily affirmed. Blackcloud then applied for post-conviction relief, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective. In his application, Blackcloud argued: (1) his trial counsel failed to file a notice of alibi defense and failed to object to the lack of specificity in the charging information; (2) his trial counsel failed to effectively cross-examine the State's expert witnesses regarding possible contamination of the DNA evidence found on the victim; and (3) his trial counsel failed to impeach the victim's mother's trial testimony or introduce evidence of her weight gain, which he claims would have supported his defense that the victim and the mother shared clothing. After holding an evidentiary hearing where both Blackcloud and his trial counsel testified, the district court denied Blackcloud's application. On appeal, Blackcloud argued the district court erred in denying his application for post-conviction relief because he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and the district court abused its discretion in excluding a photograph from evidence at the post-conviction relief hearing. Blackcloud argued his trial counsel failed to properly investigate the mother of the victim's weight gain and locate the photograph he offered at the evidentiary hearing. Blackcloud further contended his counsel's assistance was deficient because he should have further pursued Blackcloud's defense theory that the victim and her mother shared clothing, which could have explained Blackcloud's DNA on the victim's underwear. A district court does not err in denying a petitioner's application for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel's performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. A district court does not abuse its discretion when it excludes evidence, which trial counsel was not previously aware of, in an evidentiary hearing on post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court did not err in denying Blackcloud’s application for relief. View "Blackcloud v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Martin Blackcloud (a/ka/ Black Cloud) appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. In April 2014, Blackcloud was convicted of gross sexual imposition, in which the victim was his girlfriend's daughter. Blackcloud previously appealed that criminal judgment to the North Dakota Supreme Court based on an alibi defense, and the Supreme Court summarily affirmed. Blackcloud then applied for post-conviction relief, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective. In his application, Blackcloud argued: (1) his trial counsel failed to file a notice of alibi defense and failed to object to the lack of specificity in the charging information; (2) his trial counsel failed to effectively cross-examine the State's expert witnesses regarding possible contamination of the DNA evidence found on the victim; and (3) his trial counsel failed to impeach the victim's mother's trial testimony or introduce evidence of her weight gain, which he claims would have supported his defense that the victim and the mother shared clothing. After holding an evidentiary hearing where both Blackcloud and his trial counsel testified, the district court denied Blackcloud's application. On appeal, Blackcloud argued the district court erred in denying his application for post-conviction relief because he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and the district court abused its discretion in excluding a photograph from evidence at the post-conviction relief hearing. Blackcloud argued his trial counsel failed to properly investigate the mother of the victim's weight gain and locate the photograph he offered at the evidentiary hearing. Blackcloud further contended his counsel's assistance was deficient because he should have further pursued Blackcloud's defense theory that the victim and her mother shared clothing, which could have explained Blackcloud's DNA on the victim's underwear. A district court does not err in denying a petitioner's application for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel's performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. A district court does not abuse its discretion when it excludes evidence, which trial counsel was not previously aware of, in an evidentiary hearing on post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court did not err in denying Blackcloud’s application for relief. View "Blackcloud v. North Dakota" on Justia Law