Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Barbara Sokalski appealed after a jury convicted her of driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. After review of the arguments she made on appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sokalski's new trial motion because she failed to establish the City's prosecution had presented false testimony and a "false case" against her. View "City of Bismarck v. Sokalski" on Justia Law

Peter Grzeskowiak appealed an order summarily denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 2013, Grzeskowiak was charged with physical obstruction of a government function and two counts of mistreating animals after investigation of a man being attacked by dogs on a rural road near Grzeskowiak's farm. In October 2013, Grzeskowiak, with court-appointed counsel, pled guilty to one count of mistreating animals and the other two charges against him were dismissed. In 2015, Grzeskowiak filed a self-represented application for post-conviction relief, generally alleging he had been denied his natural right of liberty and due process by fraud, sham proceedings, false charges, wanton disregard for the truth in issuing a broad warrant, denial of bail, false transcripts, and denial of the right to counsel. Grzeskowiak's request for court-appointed counsel was denied with a statement that he failed to submit proof of his earning ability and that his request for counsel would be reconsidered if he submitted proof within five days. The district court thereafter summarily denied Grzeskowiak's application for post-conviction relief, stating it did not specify the criminal charge and sentence from which relief was sought, did not set forth a concise statement of each ground for relief, and did not specify the relief requested. The court explained Grzeskowiak failed to substantively state a claim for which relief could be granted and his application was meritless on its face. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded Grzeskowiak's appellate brief failed to comply with the rules of appellate procedure, and affirmed the district court order. View "Grzeskowiak v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

In 2013, a confidential informant ("CI") working with the Ward County Narcotics Task Force met with and purchased a substance from Trisha Engstrom. The substance was identified as likely being marijuana. Engstrom left this meeting and went to a residence identified as belonging to defendant Rodney Rogahn, where Engstrom was seen entering the residence. The CI arranged multiple meetings with Engstrom; officers did not see Engstrom leave Rogahn's residence. Prior to a third meeting, officers applied for a daytime search warrant for Rogahn's residence. Officers arrested Engstrom at the third meeting, after which they executed the search warrant of Rogahn's residence at 9:54 p.m. The search lasted until 11:25 p.m. As a result of the search, Rogahn was charged with various drug related crimes. Rogahn moved to suppress evidence obtained in the search, arguing no probable cause existed and the officers executed the warrant at an unreasonable time. Rogahn further requested a "Franks" hearing, arguing the attesting officer made false statements in the affidavit of probable cause and the false statements were necessary for a finding of probable cause. The district court denied Rogahn's motion, concluding probable cause existed and the officers executed the warrant at a reasonable time. The court also denied a Franks hearing, concluding any false statements by the attesting officer were not made knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly with regard to the truth and the allegedly false statements were not necessary for a finding of probable cause. Rogahn appealed after he conditionally pled guilty to various drug crimes, reserving the right to appeal an order denying his motion to suppress certain evidence and his request for a "Franks" hearing. Finding no reversible error after a review of the district court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Rogahn's conviction ad the court's decisions. View "North Dakota v. Rogahn" on Justia Law

Austin Van Zomeren appealed after a jury found him guilty of driving with a blood alcohol concentration of at least .08 percent. Before trial, Van Zomeren moved to suppress the blood test, arguing he did not voluntarily consent to take the test. He argued the deputy's reading of the implied consent advisory coerced him to take the test by stating he would be charged with a crime if he refused. The district court rejected his argument and denied the motion to suppress. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion in admitting results of the blood test, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Van Zomeren" on Justia Law

Taylor Wilkie appealed an order revoking bail and forfeiting bond after the district court found he violated a condition of the bond order relating to his arrest for a drug crime. Wilkie argued the court erred by requiring him to comply with his probation as a condition of the bond order. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the bond conditions imposed against Wilkie were not erroneous and the court did not err in ordering forfeiture of the bond. View "North Dakota v. Wilkie" on Justia Law

Ronald Thompson appealed an order denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 1991 Thompson was charged with gross sexual imposition and received a court appointed defense lawyer. In 1992 Thompson pled guilty and was sentenced to a ten year prison term with three years suspended. Thompson completed his sentence and the term of probation has expired. In 2012 Thompson applied for post-conviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and requesting dismissal of the conviction. Thompson alleged his counsel failed to competently prepare his defense, obtain an independent DNA test, adequately investigate the victim, hire a private investigator and develop a tactical trial strategy. Thompson claimed his attorney's failure to obtain a copy of a DNA report fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and prejudiced him. To meet the prejudice prong of the "Strickland" test, the defendant bore the heavy burden of establishing a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Because the standard used by the district court to analyze the prejudice prong of the Strickland test was an error of law, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. "On remand, the district court must make findings regarding whether a reasonable probability exists that, but for the alleged errors, Thompson would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. If the district court finds a reasonable probability Thompson would have insisted on going to trial, it also must make findings on the first prong of the Strickland test. If the district court finds no reasonable probability Thompson would have insisted on going to trial, post-conviction relief may be denied without examining prong one." View "Thompson v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Andrew Gillmore appealed a judgment affirming the Department of Transportation's decision to suspend his driving privileges for 91 days. Because the Supreme Court concluded the Department's decision was "in accordance with the law, its findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and support the conclusions of law, and Gillmore's constitutional rights were not violated," it affirmed the judgment. View "Gillmore v. Levi" on Justia Law

Andrew Gillmore appealed a judgment affirming the Department of Transportation's decision to suspend his driving privileges for 91 days. Because the Supreme Court concluded the Department's decision was "in accordance with the law, its findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and support the conclusions of law, and Gillmore's constitutional rights were not violated," it affirmed the judgment. View "Gillmore v. Levi" on Justia Law

Tilmer Everett appealed from a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief and barring him from filing further motions or pleadings without leave of the district court. In 2007, a jury convicted Everett of gross sexual imposition. He appealed, arguing the State violated his constitutional right to remain silent, the court erred by failing to admonish the jury before taking two recesses during trial, and there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Everett first applied for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. Everett later amended his application for post-conviction relief, alleging twelve counts of prosecutorial misconduct and fourteen counts of ineffective assistance of counsel. In March 2009, Everett filed a second application for post-conviction relief, claiming a law enforcement officer gave false and perjured testimony during his trial. By February 2013, Everett had filed a seventh application for post-conviction relief and moved for a "substitute" judge. Everett later moved to amend his application, alleging there was newly discovered evidence, including recordings of two 911 telephone calls, and the State failed to disclose this evidence. The district court denied Everett's application and motion for a "substitute" judge. Everett appealed, arguing the court denied his right to a fair appeal in a previous appeal by not ruling on the State's motion for protective order and ruling after the fact on discovery issues; the State denied his right to a fair trial by failing to disclose certain information and to provide recordings of the 911 calls; and the court erred by failing to hear his supplemental motion regarding withheld and newly-discovered evidence. He also asserted the court erred in denying his motion for a substitute judge, arguing the court was biased and prejudiced regarding his motion to disqualify the judge, his motion to compel the State to transcribe the two recorded 911 calls, and in ruling the matter was res judicata. In June 2015, Everett filed his current application for post-conviction relief, making essentially the same arguments made in his seventh application. Finding no error in the district court's denial of the eighth application and bar from filing additional motions without leave of court, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Everett v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Bo Schmidt appealed a district court judgment affirming a Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision to suspend his driving privileges. Schmidt argued the implied consent advisory was misleading, the chemical test was a warrantless search and North Dakota's refusal statute is unconstitutional. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Schmidt v. Levi" on Justia Law