Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Andrew Olsen appealed a trial court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that as a matter of law, the failure of Olsen's attorney to raise an issue of first impression on an unsettled question of law in North Dakota did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore the Court affirmed the district court's order. View "Olsen v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Karmen Lindsey appealed a district court order summarily dismissing her application for post-conviction relief from a conviction entered after her 2007 guilty plea to a charge of murder. After review, the Supreme Court concluded Lindsey's application for post-conviction relief failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding her claims for ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct. Therefore the Court affirmed the dismissal. View "Lindsey v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Ernest Coppage appealed a district court order that denied him post-conviction relief after a jury convicted him of attempted murder. In 2006, the State charged Coppage with attempted murder. Before trial, Coppage moved the court to prevent the State from introducing evidence of his prior alleged domestic violence. The State did not object, and the court granted Coppage's pretrial motion. The Supreme Court recently held in "Dominguez v. North Dakota," that attempted murder under N.D.C.C. sections 12.1-06-01 and 12.1-16-01(1)(b) was not a cognizable offense. The Court concluded Coppage failed to establish he was prejudiced by claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. But following a majority of the Court's holding in "North Dakota v. Borner," and "North Dakota v. Whitman," the Court exercised its inherent authority to notice obvious error because Coppage's conviction for attempted murder under N.D.C.C. sections 12.1-06-01 and 12.1-16-01(1)(b) was not a cognizable offense. Therefore the Court reversed Coppage's conviction for attempted murder and reinstated the jury's verdict of aggravated assault. The case was remanded for resentencing. View "Coppage v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Justin Yarbro appealed his conviction after a jury found him guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a child and the district court's order denying his motion for a new trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that defendant's failure to object to the admission of DNA evidence during trial and in his motion for a new trial precluded him from raising arguments on appeal about the admission of that evidence. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial on the ground of juror misconduct. View "North Dakota v. Yarbro" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Tamri Stewart appealed her conviction following a conditional plea of guilty to class C felony abuse or neglect of a child, reserving the right to challenge the district court's denial of her motion to suppress evidence. Because the facts in this case did not support the district court's decision that a police officer's entry into Stewart's home was justified by the emergency exception to the warrant requirement, the Supreme Court reversed the criminal judgment and remanded the case to allow Stewart to withdraw her guilty plea. View "North Dakota v. Stewart" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Chad Klein appealed a district court order denying his motion to correct his sentence. The Supreme Court, after review, concluded that the district court acted within the limits prescribed by statute to sentence him for gross sexual imposition (a class A felony). Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion. View "North Dakota v. Klein" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Luke Gatlin appealed his conviction following a conditional plea of guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia. Because the Supreme Court held Gatlin could not assert a violation of a third party's expectation of privacy in the home searched by police and because Gatlin failed to object to the search, it affirmed the district court judgment. View "North Dakota v. Gatlin" on Justia Law

In July 2013, a Bismarck Police Officer arrested Appellant Ducote Haynes for being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The police transported Haynes to jail, but the arresting officer did not have a copy of the correct Report and Notice form for Haynes. The officer went to the police station to obtain and fill out the proper Report and Notice. The arresting officer's shift ended shortly after he filled out the Report and Notice and he requested another officer issue the Report and Notice and deliver it to Haynes at the jail. The second officer testified he delivered the Report and Notice to the jail and placed it in an elevator for jail staff to retrieve. Haynes requested an administrative hearing regarding the revocation of his driving privileges. At the hearing, Haynes argued the Department did not have authority to revoke his license because he was not immediately issued the Report and Notice. The hearing officer found Haynes received the Report and Notice and revoked Haynes' driving privileges for 180 days. Haynes appealed the decision to the district court, arguing the hearing officer erred in finding the Department had authority to revoke his license because the Report and Notice was not immediately issued and was not personally served on him. The district court affirmed the hearing officer's decision. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Haynes v. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Adam Frank appealed a district court judgment affirming a Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision suspending Frank's driving privileges for driving under the influence of alcohol. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that proper foundation for the Intoxilyzer test results was not laid, and the administrative hearing officer erred in admitting the Intoxilyzer test results. The Court therefore reversed the district court judgment. View "Frank v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Gerald Middleton was found guilty by a jury of continuous sexual abuse of a child, a class AA felony, and corruption of a minor, a class C felony. After the trial, attorney Steven Light, now deceased, was substituted as Middleton's new counsel. Middleton then moved for a new trial. The district court denied Middleton's motion, ruling Middleton failed to include any legal arguments or facts to support his motion. Middleton was sentenced, and a judgment was subsequently entered. Light died three months after submitting the brief in support of the new trial motion. Middleton filed an application for postconviction relief, arguing his trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective on four grounds. With respect to Light, Middleton argued, "Post-trial counsel filed a substantively deficient motion for new trial thereby effectively denying Mr. Middleton direct appellate review of his case by the North Dakota Supreme Court[.]" After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Middleton's application for postconviction relief. Middleton appealed the district court order denying his application for postconviction relief, challenging only the ruling as it pertained to Light's representation. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief: "Middleton has not established the existence of meritorious issues that could have been raised in either the new trial motion or the direct appeal had a new trial motion not been filed by Light. Rather, Middleton argues prejudice should be presumed because the inadequate new trial motion effectively denied him the right to appeal." View "Middleton v. North Dakota" on Justia Law