Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Chad Walker appealed an amended judgment that included an order to pay restitution. Walker pled guilty to theft for possession of a stolen motorcycle. The motorcycle owner filed a victim impact statement requesting restitution for the cost of repairing the motorcycle. A restitution hearing was held and an amended criminal judgment was entered, ordering Walker pay $2,410.69 in repairs for damage to the motorcycle. Walker argued he pled guilty to possession of stolen property and was not accused of stealing or damaging the motorcycle. He further argued the damages were not related to his criminal offense and were not a direct result of his criminal action. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined, after review of the trial court record, when returned, the motorcycle was physically damaged. Repairs included replacing multiple covers, two turn signals, fuel tank, and installing a missing heat shield. The Court found the damage to the motorcycle was directly related to the criminal offense, and it could have reasonably been inferred that damage was caused during possession of the stolen property. Therefore, the Court affirmed the restitution order. View "North Dakota v. Walker" on Justia Law

Marlon Comes appealed a Second Amended Criminal Judgment, asserting the judgment imposed an illegal sentence. In 1996, Comes pleaded guilty to a class AA felony charge of murder and a class A felony charge of robbery. On October 18, 1996, Comes was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole on the murder charge and a concurrent ten years imprisonment on the Robbery charge, with credit for 307 days he had served in custody pending the disposition of his case. In 2018 the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation [DOCR], in conjunction with considering when Comes would be eligible for parole, requested the district court amend the judgment to include a calculation of Comes’ life expectancy as of the date of sentencing. Pursuant to the DOCR’s request, the district court issued an amended judgment on August 7, 2018, incorporating a life expectancy calculation. The Second Amended Criminal Judgment provided Comes would be eligible for consideration by the parole board after thirty years of imprisonment, less sentence reduction earned for good conduct. Comes argued the sentence was illegal because his eligibility for parole should have been determined by N.D.C.C. 12.1-32- 09.1 and be equal to 85% of his life expectancy calculation of 23.8 years, less any sentence reduction earned for good conduct. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Comes" on Justia Law

Rocky Stein appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. Stein was charged with criminal vehicular homicide, a class A felony, and pled guilty to manslaughter, a class B felony. Stein entered an “open plea” and the judge sentenced Stein to ten years with the North Dakota Department of Corrections with three years suspended, and supervised probation for five years. In his application for post-conviction relief Stein claims ineffective assistance of counsel. Stein argues his trial attorney did not adequately inform him he was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence requiring him to serve 85 percent of the sentence imposed and that his trial attorney made assertions in the nature of a guarantee that he would serve a probation only sentence. Stein also urges this Court to overrule Sambursky v. North Dakota, 751 N.W.2d 247, and North Dakota v. Peterson, 927 N.W.2d 74, to the extent necessary, which he claims was essential to ensure defendants ere afforded sufficient information regarding the 85 percent rule to make an intelligent decision affecting the ultimate sentence in their criminal case. The North Dakota Supreme Court declined to overrule Sambursky and Peterson, and found no other reversible error, thus affirming the decision not to grant post-conviction relief. View "Stein v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Larry Alber appealed a district court order denying his motion for injunctive relief against the City of Marion. Alber also appealed an order denying his motion for reconsideration. In 2003, the City sued Alber, alleging certain abandoned vehicles on Alber’s property violated a City ordinance and were a public nuisance. The district court entered a judgment against Alber finding the vehicles on Alber’s property were a public nuisance. The judgment required Alber to remove or lawfully maintain the vehicles. In 2013, the district court found Alber in contempt for violating the 2003 judgment’s requirement that he maintain the vehicles or remove them from his property. The court ordered Alber to remove all nuisance vehicles from his property. The court also ordered that any vehicles not removed by Alber could be removed by the City. In December 2016, Alber moved for injunctive relief, requesting a temporary restraining order prohibiting the City from entering his property to remove nuisance vehicles. As it related to the denial of his motion for injunctive relief, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined Alber’s brief failed to demonstrate that any of the injunctive relief factors weighed in his favor: he did not show a substantial probability of succeeding on the merits, proof of irreparable injury, harm to other interested parties, and how the public interest would be benefited by the granting of injunctive relief. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court. View "North Dakota ex rel. City of Marion v. Alber" on Justia Law

James Dubois, Jr., appealed a criminal judgment entered after the district court revoked his probation and resentenced him to five years’ incarceration. In 2017, Dubois plead guilty to two counts of criminal trespass and refusal to halt. The first criminal trespass count was a class C felony for which he was sentenced to a term of eighteen months’ commitment to the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, first to serve 90 days with the balance suspended for eighteen months of supervised probation, to be served concurrently with the other two counts. In January 2019, a probation officer petitioned to revoke Dubois’ probation, alleging he committed three new criminal offenses, and a fourth allegation that was later dismissed. Dubois was convicted of each of the three offenses. Dubois admitted the allegations at the revocation hearing and asked to be placed back on probation. The district court rejected that request and asked for an alternative recommendation from Dubois. Dubois then argued for a sentence of time already served. The court revoked his probation and resentenced him to five years’ incarceration with credit for time previously served. Dubois argued on appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court the district court abused its discretion in revoking his probation and the sentence was illegal. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Dubois" on Justia Law

Allan Pailing appealed a district court order denying his motion for mistrial and dismissal of charges. Pailing was charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance. During closing arguments he objected to an anecdotal story the State used, and argued the State impliedly commented on Pailing’s failure to testify. The district court did not immediately rule on the objection and directed the parties to finish closing arguments. Pailing briefed the objection, which the district court ultimately overruled and denied Pailing’s motion for mistrial and dismissal of charges. Pailing argued on appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court that the State’s explanation of “circumstantial evidence” through a personal narrative indirectly and improperly commented on his silence and violated his due process rights. He alternatively argued the district court abused its discretion by permitting the State to address Pailing’s credibility, absent his testimony, which prejudiced Pailing. The Supreme Court concluded the correct standard of review whether Pailing’s due process rights were violated was de novo, and that the prosecutor’s anecdotal story did not violate Pailing’s constitutional rights. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Pailing’s objection and denying the motion for mistrial. View "North Dakota v. Pailing" on Justia Law

Karen Wieland appeals from a judgment allowing the city of Fargo to take her property for flood mitigation purposes and awarding her $939,044.32 in just compensation, attorney fees, costs, and statutory expenses. Because the district court did not misapply the law in concluding the taking of Wieland’s property was necessary for a public use, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirm the judgment. View "City of Fargo v. Wieland" on Justia Law

Continental Resources, Inc. appealed a district court judgment dismissing its declaratory judgment action against the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality (“Department”). Continental’s action for declaratory judgment requested the district court find “that if an approved control device is installed and operating at an oil and gas production facility, the mere presence of an emission from a closed tank hatch or control device does not, in and of itself, establish a violation of N.D. Admin. Code 33-15-07-2(1).” The district court dismissed Continental’s declaratory judgment action after finding the Environmental Protection Agency was an indispensable party, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and the matter was not ripe for judicial review. While this appeal was pending, the Department moved to dismiss the appeal as moot. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment dismissing Continental’s request for declaratory judgment as not ripe for judicial review. View "Continental Resources v. N.D. Dept. of Environmental Quality" on Justia Law

Paul and Raina Saastad were married in 2006 and had two children together. In April 2017, Raina filed for divorce. The issues of residential and decisionmaking responsibility for the parties’ children were tried to the district court over two days in May 2018. In July 2018, the parties stipulated on the record to an agreement on financial issues. As part of the agreement, the parties agreed to pay their own attorney’s fees. The court granted the parties equal decisionmaking responsibility regarding the children, but granted Raina primary residential responsibility, noting joint residential responsibility would not be in the best interests of the children given the parties’ unwillingness to communicate or cooperate. Paul moved for a new trial, seeking to admit newly discovered evidence. He also moved for relief from judgment, alleging several errors in the district court’s judgment. Raina opposed the motions, and in her response requested attorney’s fees for the additional legal work related to the post-judgment motions. The district court denied the motion for a new trial, granted the motion for relief from judgment in part, and denied Raina's request for attorney’s fees. Paul appealed and Raina cross-appealed the trial court's orders, but finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Saastad v. Saastad" on Justia Law

George Job appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw his 2008 guilty plea to the charge of aggravated assault. Job argued the district court abused its discretion by determining a manifest injustice did not result from a 2010 resentencing following the revocation of his probation. He contended the resentencing was illegal and transformed his original non-deportable offense into a deportable offense. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Job" on Justia Law