Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case, George Lyons appealed from a district court order dismissing his application for postconviction relief. Lyons had been convicted of gross sexual imposition in 2017, a conviction that was upheld on appeal. He filed an application for postconviction relief more than two years after his conviction became final, claiming newly discovered evidence and arguing that his conviction was barred by a statute of limitations for gross sexual imposition. The district court dismissed his application as untimely under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01, which requires such applications to be filed within two years of the conviction becoming final.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the dismissal. The court first noted that while postconviction relief is available for convictions obtained without jurisdiction, such claims must be brought within the two-year deadline, and no exception exists for claims challenging the district court's jurisdiction. Therefore, Lyons' claim concerning the statute of limitations for gross sexual imposition was untimely.Second, the court rejected Lyons' argument that the newly discovered evidence exception to the two-year deadline applied. The court found that Lyons had failed to provide competent admissible evidence to support his claim that the new evidence was discovered after trial. As such, the court held that Lyons had failed to meet his burden to obtain an evidentiary hearing in the district court.Lastly, the court declined to address Lyons' ineffective assistance of counsel claim because he did not provide any argument or explanation concerning this claim in his brief. View "Lyons v. State" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed and remanded a juvenile court order that terminated the parental rights of T.W. to her children, J.C. and M.W. The children had been placed in foster care by the Ward County Human Services Zone due to child abuse by T.W. and A.W., and T.W. was sentenced to four years in custody after pleading guilty to three counts of child abuse. The State later filed a petition for termination of T.W.'s parental rights.The Supreme Court found that the juvenile court had abused its discretion when it took judicial notice of and considered evidence beyond the evidentiary record. The court also found that the juvenile court had made clearly erroneous findings, including incorrectly stating that the children had been in foster care for 1123 nights when they had actually been there for 877 nights. Although there was sufficient evidence to support the termination of T.W.'s parental rights, the court was unable to discern whether the juvenile court had relied on inadmissible evidence in its decision.As a result, the Supreme Court remanded the case with instructions for the juvenile court to issue an order based only on the evidence received at trial. The Supreme Court retained jurisdiction and requested that the juvenile court issue its new order within 20 days. View "Interest of J.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed a district court decision denying Chad Hanson's petition to be recognized as the heir of the late Arlen Lindberg. Lindberg died intestate, and Hanson filed a petition alleging that he was Lindberg's biological son, substantiating his claim with an affidavit from his mother and DNA testing results showing a 99.7% chance of relation to Lindberg's biological brother. The Lindberg family opposed the petition, arguing that Lindberg's parental rights were terminated when Hanson was adopted by his stepfather. The district court ruled in favor of the Lindberg family, interpreting North Dakota's Uniform Probate Code and Uniform Parentage Act to require that a paternity action commence within two years of birth, which was not the case for Hanson. However, the Supreme Court of North Dakota disagreed with this interpretation, stating that the district court had applied the law incorrectly. The Supreme Court ruled that the Uniform Probate Code allows for establishing a "genetic father" through genetic testing or the Uniform Parentage Act, and that the act of adoption does not equate to an adjudication of paternity. The case was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings. View "Estate of Lindberg" on Justia Law

In this case from the Supreme Court of North Dakota, Daynen Hoover contested a district court judgment that affirmed a decision by the North Dakota Department of Transportation (Department) to suspend his driving privileges for 91 days. This penalty was the result of Hoover being arrested for being in control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, with a blood alcohol concentration of .085 percent by weight. The Department conducted an administrative hearing by video conference, during which they introduced eight foundational exhibits from the State Crime Laboratory. Hoover objected to this on the grounds that he and his counsel did not have copies of these exhibits to review and analyze. Despite these objections, the hearing officer admitted the exhibits and the Department subsequently suspended Hoover's driving privileges for 91 days.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the district court's decision. The court concluded that the procedure used by the Department, which admitted exhibits into evidence without providing Hoover a meaningful opportunity to examine them, deprived him of a fair hearing. The court noted that the Department's notice of information did not offer copies of the exhibits or specifically identify which documents maintained by the Department or available on the attorney general's website would be introduced at the hearing. The court found that this violated the requirement for parties to be afforded an opportunity to examine exhibits before they are admitted into evidence. Therefore, the court ruled that the Department's procedures did not comply with state law and substantially prejudiced Hoover's procedural rights. The court's decision emphasized the importance of a party's ability to examine exhibits introduced against them as a critical procedural protection in adjudicative proceedings. View "Hoover v. NDDOT" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of North Dakota heard an appeal from Robert Williamson, who was sentenced for probation violations related to two counts of gross sexual imposition and one count of luring minors by computer. Williamson had initially served approximately four and a half years of a 10-year sentence, with all but five years suspended, and was then released on probation. He was given "good time" credit by the Department of Corrections, which aids in reducing a sentence. However, after violating his probation conditions, Williamson was re-sentenced to a 10-year term with credit for 4 years and 181 days, without any consideration of his accrued good time.Williamson appealed the decision, arguing that his re-sentencing was illegal because it did not account for his good time credit. The Supreme Court of North Dakota agreed, stating that a court does not have the authority to waive or limit good time awarded by the Department of Corrections, and any credit for sentence reductions must be stated in the criminal judgment. The court held that the lower court had illegally sentenced Williamson by failing to include his accrued good time in the re-sentencing. The case was reversed and remanded for re-sentencing in accordance with the opinion. View "State v. Williamson" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed a decision from the District Court of Burleigh County, which had granted a motion to suppress evidence in a criminal trial. The defendant, Matthew Gietzen, was charged with possession of controlled substances and drug paraphernalia that were found in a locked bag within a backpack during a vehicle search. The driver of the vehicle had consented to the search, but Gietzen, a passenger, did not give explicit consent. The district court held that the driver's consent did not extend to the search of Gietzen's backpack, particularly the locked bag containing contraband, because it was unreasonable to believe the female driver had authority to consent to a search of a locked bag containing men’s items. On appeal, the Supreme Court agreed with this assessment, stating that it is the officer's burden to obtain affirmative consent for a search when a constitutional protection applies and consent alone serves as the basis for the search. The court therefore affirmed the district court's order to suppress the evidence found in the backpack, upholding the principle that a third party's consent to a search does not necessarily extend to personal items belonging to another individual. View "State v. Gietzen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota considered an appeal by Michelle Vetter against a district court judgment which found her liable for unpaid legal fees to Larson Latham Huettl LLP, a law firm she'd hired for her divorce proceedings. The firm had sued Vetter for a balance of $552 which exceeded an initial retainer of $6,000. Vetter disputed the claim, arguing that the firm had unilaterally altered the agreement's terms, breached the contract, and committed fraud or deceit. She alleged she'd been billed at $200 per hour instead of the agreed $180. The district court dismissed Vetter's counterclaim, upheld the validity and enforceability of the fee agreement (which included a provision that the hourly rate could increase during representation), and awarded judgment to the law firm for the unpaid fees, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's decision, finding that its conclusions were supported by the record and not clearly erroneous. The court ruled that attorney's fees were reasonable and enforceable under the contract. The court also remanded the case to the district court to determine a reasonable amount for attorney’s fees for the appeal, as per the North Dakota Century Code, which allows a prevailing plaintiff to be awarded attorney’s fees when the defendant elects to remove the action from small claims court to district court and appeals the district court judgment to the supreme court. View "Vetter v. Larson Latham Huettl LLP" on Justia Law

In this case, the State of North Dakota appealed an order transferring a criminal case involving the defendant, A.J.H., who was charged with six counts of gross sexual imposition, to the juvenile court. The transfer was based on a newly amended definition of "Child" in the North Dakota Century Code, which the district court concluded applied to this case. However, A.J.H. moved to dismiss the State's appeals, arguing that there was no appealable order.The Supreme Court of North Dakota considered whether the transfer order qualifies as an appealable order under the state's laws. The State argued that the transfer order was effectively an order quashing the criminal information, a type of order that it could appeal. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the district court did not dismiss the case but simply transferred it to the juvenile court. The court also rejected the State's argument that the transfer order was an order made after judgment affecting any substantial right of the state, because no judgment had been entered in the case.Based on these considerations, the Supreme Court held that the State did not have the right to appeal under the relevant statute, and dismissed the appeals for lack of an appealable order. The court also denied A.J.H.'s request for costs and attorney’s fees, finding that the State's appeal was not frivolous. View "State v. A.J.H." on Justia Law

In the State of North Dakota, defendant Ibrahim Salou was convicted of possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance while in possession of a firearm, and possession of a controlled substance. Salou appealed his conviction, alleging the district court erred in allowing evidence obtained from his phone under Rule 404(b) of the North Dakota Rules of Evidence and there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the lower court's decision. The court noted that Salou had preserved his claims of error related to the relevance and unfair prejudice of the evidence but had not preserved his objection to the Rule 404(b) issue, meaning it would only be reviewed for obvious error. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's determination that the evidence was relevant and not more prejudicial than probative. The court further found that the district court did not obviously err in its handling of Rule 404(b) as Salou had not raised this issue at trial.The Supreme Court also found that there was sufficient evidence to support Salou's conviction. The court noted that the evidence indicated that the backpack containing marijuana was located at Salou's feet during a traffic stop, and neither he nor the driver claimed possession of the backpack. The packaging of the marijuana found in the backpack was similar in appearance to the marijuana shown in a photograph found on Salou's phone. As such, the court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to draw an inference that Salou was in possession of the backpack. View "State v. Salou" on Justia Law

In the case at hand, Wilmot Yalartai, the plaintiff and appellant, appealed against an order dismissing his case against Jamesetta Miller, the respondent. The two are married with minor children and Yalartai had filed two cases against Miller - one for parenting responsibility and the other for divorce. After a hearing, a judicial referee dismissed the parenting responsibility case, stating that issues concerning parenting responsibility could be resolved in the divorce case. The referee's dismissal order was given without notice to the parties, and Yalartai appealed against this order.The Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota, in its decision, stated that the dismissal order is not appealable under N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02 because it was issued without notice. Thus, the court dismissed Yalartai's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court explained that under N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02(7), orders issued without notice to the parties are not appealable and litigants must first seek relief in the district court from an order made without notice. The court further explained that an adversarial record, which does not exist in this case, is required for their review. Hence, Yalartai's failure to seek relief from the dismissal order as required by law led to the dismissal of his appeal. View "Yalartai v. Miller" on Justia Law