Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In the state of North Dakota, Garron Gonzalez was initially charged with two counts of gross sexual imposition, both class A felonies, in September 2003. Gonzalez pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment on each count, all but 130 days suspended, and placed on probation for five years. The sentences were to be served concurrently. After his probation was twice revoked, Gonzalez was resentenced to additional time. However, in the second amended judgment, the sentences were to be served consecutively.In 2012 and again in 2022, Gonzalez filed petitions for post-conviction relief. The court granted both petitions, finding that the sentences imposed in 2014 were greater than the time originally suspended and were therefore deemed illegal. In April 2023, a new sentencing hearing was held wherein Gonzalez was sentenced again to five years' imprisonment for each count, to be served consecutively, thus totaling ten years.Gonzalez appealed, arguing that his sentences are illegal under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6) because the amended judgment imposes more severe sentences than the original sentences and retroactively increases the punishment for his prior conduct.The Supreme Court of North Dakota agreed with Gonzalez's argument. The court found that the district court had effectively increased Gonzalez’s total term of imprisonment to 10 years, exceeding the suspended sentences originally imposed. Therefore, the sentences were deemed illegal under the pre-amended version of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6). The court reversed the decision and remanded the case for resentencing consistent with its opinion. View "State v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the appeal of Christopher Lamm against a disorderly conduct restraining order issued by the District Court, preventing him from having contact with Amanda Anderson, the mother of his child. Anderson claimed that Lamm had threatened her, made false child abuse allegations, and exhibited other threatening behavior. The District Court issued the order based on Lamm's visit to the town where Anderson resided, which it deemed as disorderly conduct. Lamm appealed the decision, and even though the restraining order had expired by the time of the appeal, the Supreme Court acknowledged potential adverse collateral consequences for Lamm and considered the appeal on its merits. The Supreme Court determined that the evidence provided was insufficient to prove that Lamm's presence in the town where Anderson lived constituted disorderly conduct. The court clarified that mere subjective fear of the petitioner or the respondent's unwanted presence was not enough to qualify as disorderly conduct or to justify a restraining order. The court found that Anderson failed to demonstrate how Lamm's actions adversely affected her safety, security, or privacy, and therefore, the District Court's decision to issue the restraining order was deemed as an abuse of discretion. In conclusion, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the District Court's disorderly conduct restraining order against Lamm. View "Anderson v. Lamm" on Justia Law

In this case, Jerome Wesseh Koon, Jr. appealed from a district court judgment that denied his application for postconviction relief. Koon had been convicted of reckless endangerment, tampering with physical evidence, unlawful possession of a firearm, and terrorizing. His postconviction relief application was based on two main claims. Firstly, he argued that the district court erred by considering evidence outside the record, specifically the clerk's trial notes. Secondly, he claimed that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.The Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota affirmed the district court's judgment. The court rejected Koon's first argument, finding that the district court did not err in considering the clerk's trial notes. The court noted that the district court had provided notice to the parties of its intent to judicially notice the clerk's trial notes, and ultimately did not rely on the notes in its findings. The court also rejected Koon's argument that the district court's review of the clerk's notes automatically created a biased factfinder.Regarding Koon's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the Supreme Court found that Koon had failed to show that there was a reasonable probability that the result of his trial would have been different had his counsel acted differently. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of postconviction relief. View "Koon v. State" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Mathew Nelson, appealed his sentence for sexual assault, gross sexual imposition, and corruption of a minor. He argued that the district court relied on impermissible factors when determining his sentence and that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's decision. The Court found that the district court had the discretion to consider the sentencing factors provided in N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-04 and that it had not relied on impermissible factors. The Court noted that there was evidence in the record to support the court’s consideration of Nelson’s ability to control his behavior when considering the length of his sentence and that the future harm caused by Nelson’s conduct was a permissible sentencing factor to consider.The Court also found that Nelson’s argument that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment was not adequately articulated or supported, and therefore did not need to be addressed further. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court’s criminal judgments. View "State v. Nelson" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of North Dakota, Russell Everett Jr., the appellant, sought to appeal a district court's order dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. Everett contended that he had not been served with two orders from his first post-conviction relief proceeding, thereby denying him the right to appeal those orders. He also alleged that the discovery of these orders constituted newly discovered evidence, and that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel during his direct appeal.Everett had been convicted of two counts of gross sexual imposition and had been sentenced to two life sentences with the possibility of parole. His conviction was affirmed by this court. In his first application for post-conviction relief, Everett argued that the witness's testimony had been coerced by their family and that he had discovered new evidence that could overturn his conviction. He also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and a violation of his right to a fair trial as the victim-witness did not attend the trial. The district court denied this application, and neither the order nor notice of entry of the order was served on Everett.In response to Everett's second application for post-conviction relief, the court summarily dismissed it. Everett subsequently appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of North Dakota.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's dismissal of Everett's second application for post-conviction relief. The court determined that Everett's claim of "newly discovered evidence" did not meet the statutory requirements as it did not pertain to his original conviction. Furthermore, the court found that Everett's appeal had been filed beyond the two-year statute of limitations for filing post-conviction relief claims, and no exception to this statute applied in this case. Additionally, his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was also deemed to have been filed after the statute of limitations had expired. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court had not erred in dismissing Everett's claims for post-conviction relief and ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Everett v. State" on Justia Law

The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed a district court's judgment, which had dismissed the claims of Jacob Ebel, John Ebel, and Ordeen Ebel (collectively, "the Ebels") for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, breach of contract, and tortious interference. The Ebels had sought enforcement of contracts they claimed were formed when their bids for parcels of real property owned by the estate of Mark Engelhardt were accepted. The district court had dismissed the Ebels' claims, asserting that the parties did not satisfy the statute of frauds, which requires contracts for the sale of real property to be in writing. The Supreme Court found that the district court misapplied the law because the statute of frauds was not specifically pled or otherwise raised by the parties. The Supreme Court noted that under Rule 8 of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure, the statute of frauds must be specifically pled as an affirmative defense. Therefore, the case was reversed on the ground that the district court incorrectly applied the statute of frauds when the defense was not properly raised. View "Ebel v. Engelhart" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute that arose after a divorce between Greg Grengs and Lisa Genareo (formerly Lisa Grengs). As part of the divorce settlement, the Supreme Court of North Dakota ordered that property owned by GLG Farms, LLC, a company established by Grengs to hold ownership of his farm property and equipment, be mortgaged to provide Genareo with security for a property settlement payment valued at $1,300,000. Following the court order, two new members were added to GLG Farms, LLC, and the company filed for bankruptcy protection. Grengs and GLG Farms, LLC, then entered into a stipulation agreement in bankruptcy court, agreeing to mortgage terms and payment terms. However, GLG Farms, LLC, later argued that the two new members of the company were not required to execute the mortgage and that the agreement in bankruptcy court had little impact on the court's decision.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's order, holding that Grengs acted as an ostensible agent of GLG Farms, LLC, with apparent authority. The court found that Genareo was right to believe that GLG Farms, LLC, consented to Grengs acting as its agent, thus binding the company to the stipulation agreement. The court concluded that GLG Farms, LLC, ratified Grengs' actions by embracing their advantages and using them in judicial proceedings and did not timely disavow Grengs' actions.The court also rejected GLG Farms, LLC's argument that the district court failed to adequately describe the terms of the required mortgage, pointing out that a statutory mortgage form exists and that the amounts due by Grengs were plainly provided in the stipulation. The court further found GLG Farms, LLC's argument that North Dakota law does not provide a standard mortgage to be frivolous, awarding Genareo $1,000 as a sanction. View "Grengs v. Grengs" on Justia Law

In this case presided by the Supreme Court of North Dakota, the defendant, Michael Dean Hamilton, was charged with hindering law enforcement under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-08-03(1)(b) by providing transportation and money to an individual involved in an abduction crime in Virginia. Prior to the trial, Hamilton and the State reached a plea agreement, but the district court rejected it, citing insufficient factual basis for Hamilton's guilty plea. Instead, the district court accepted an open plea from Hamilton. On appeal, Hamilton argued that the district court had abused its discretion by rejecting the plea agreement and then accepting the open plea, despite both requiring a factual basis. He also claimed that the court had relied on impermissible sentencing factors, including information outside the record and inferences from the record.In its decision, the Supreme Court of North Dakota held that Hamilton's claim regarding the rejection of the plea agreement was waived when he entered an open guilty plea knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. The court stated that after entering an open plea without conditions, a defendant could only challenge the voluntary and intelligent nature of the plea. Therefore, Hamilton could no longer challenge the non-jurisdictional defects of the district court's rejection of the plea agreement.Regarding the sentencing factors, the Supreme Court found that the district court did not commit an obvious error when it considered information outside the record and relied on its personal knowledge about Amber alerts in deciding Hamilton's sentence. The court stated that Hamilton had not demonstrated that the factors considered by the court were a clear deviation from the applicable statutory provisions, case law, or rules of evidence. As a result, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "State v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

In a divorce and child support dispute in the State of North Dakota, the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the lower court's judgment, which involved the calculation of the defendant's child support obligation, decisions on evidentiary matters and the awarding of attorney’s fees.Aron Williams and Jennifer Williams, who have two children together, divorced in February 2018. Jennifer Williams was awarded primary residential responsibility of the children, and Aron Williams was ordered to pay child support based on his classification as an experienced farmer with an imputed gross annual income. The case has gone through several rounds of modification and amendment of judgments.In the latest appeal, Aron Williams contested the district court's categorization of him as a "farmer" and its subsequent calculation of his income for child support purposes, arguing that he should be considered a "farm laborer" with a lower income. The Supreme Court of North Dakota found that the district court did not err in classifying Aron Williams as a farmer and imputing the statewide average income of a farmer to him for the purposes of child support.Additionally, Aron Williams argued that the district court erred in its decisions regarding evidentiary matters and the awarding of attorney’s fees to Jennifer Williams. The Supreme Court of North Dakota concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Aron Williams’s motion to reopen the record or in awarding attorney’s fees, and therefore affirmed these decisions. View "Williams v. Williams" on Justia Law

In this case, Travis Wedmore appealed a ruling by the District Court of Burleigh County, which found that he has serious difficulty controlling his sexual behavior and thus remains a sexually dangerous individual. However, the Supreme Court of North Dakota found that Wedmore's appeal was not filed within the statutorily required 30 days after the district court's order denying his discharge from civil commitment. The court determined that the appeal was untimely regardless of whether "entry of the order" was interpreted as the date the order was signed or the date it was docketed. As such, the Supreme Court of North Dakota concluded it did not have jurisdiction over the matter and dismissed the appeal. View "Interest of Wedmore" on Justia Law