Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A.S. appealed a juvenile court's judgment and order terminating her parental rights to her child, A.S.F. A.S. was appointed counsel when the State petitioned for involuntary termination of her parental rights. The trial court allowed A.S.’s counsel to withdraw after A.S. expressed dissatisfaction with her counsel. The termination hearing was continued and new counsel was appointed. One day before the rescheduled hearing, A.S.’s second counsel moved to withdraw. The judge heard the motion at the termination hearing. There, counsel stated a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship had occurred. The court granted counsel’s motion on the basis of the treatment A.S. showed to her counsel and the unwillingness of A.S. to work with any attorney the court appointed. The judge found A.S.’s actions to be a voluntary waiver of her right to counsel. Counsel was allowed to leave the courtroom. The hearing proceeded with A.S. without counsel. The juvenile court entered an order terminating parental rights on June 10, 2021. A.S. appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court 61 days after the initial June 10 order terminating her parental rights was entered. A.S. argues her right to counsel was violated after the court granted her second attorney’s motion to withdraw, leaving A.S. to represent herself at the termination hearing and without advice regarding the process and deadline for appeal. The Supreme Court determined it lacked jurisdiction even to consider a claim that a party failed to timely appeal as a result of a denial of the party’s right to counsel. "We are without jurisdiction to hear A.S.’s waiver of her right to counsel argument because her appeal was untimely." View "Interest of A.S.F." on Justia Law

LeRoy Wheeler appealed a district court order denying his applications for postconviction relief. In 2005, Wheeler was convicted of gross sexual imposition, encouraging the deprivation of a minor, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Wheeler was subject to an order prohibiting him from filing new postconviction relief applications without leave of court. The North Dakota Supreme Court treated the district court’s order as one denying Wheeler leave to file new applications. Orders denying leave to file were not appealable, and the appeal was dismissed. View "Wheeler v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Nicole Kunz (formerly, Slappy) appealed a third amended judgment modifying her primary residential responsibility for the parties’ minor child, M.S., and granting Jermece Slappy equal residential responsibility. Kunz argued the district court erred in finding a material change in circumstances, erred in modifying the existing residential responsibility in the absence of a general decline in the child’s condition, and erred in its analysis of the best interest factors. Slappy cross-appealed, arguing the district court improperly calculated his child support obligation. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court erred in modifying the existing residential responsibility without evidence of a general decline in the condition of the child. Therefore, the third amended judgment was reversed. In light of the Court’s decision with respect to the third amended judgment, the Court found it unnecessary to resolve the remaining issues raised by the parties on appeal. View "Slappy v. Slappy" on Justia Law

Alfredo Deleon, Jr. appealed his conviction for possession of certain materials prohibited. In February 2020, Deleon was charged with one count gross sexual imposition, and one count of possession of certain materials prohibited. After a three-day jury trial, he was convicted on both counts. On appeal, Deleon challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him. Finding sufficient evidence supported Deleon’s conviction, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Deleon" on Justia Law

Tonya Kerzmann appealed a district court’s denial of her request for an evidentiary hearing on her motion for a change in primary residential responsibility. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded Kerzmann pled a prima facie case supporting her motion for modification of primary residential responsibility. Therefore, the Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Kerzmann v. Kerzmann" on Justia Law

Dylan Marsolek appealed a criminal judgment entered after he conditionally pled guilty to possession of controlled substances and drug paraphernalia. Marsolek, a passenger in a vehicle involved in a traffic stop, argued he was unlawfully seized because the officers prolonged the traffic stop beyond the time necessary to issue a traffic citation. He argued the evidence resulting from the traffic stop should have been excluded because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to expand the scope of the traffic stop into a drug investigation. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the district court did not err in denying Marsolek’s motion to suppress evidence because the officer had reasonable suspicion to justify prolonging the traffic stop. View "North Dakota v. Marsolek" on Justia Law

Bonnie Lynn Nygaard appealed after her conditional plea to refusing to take a chemical breath test was accepted. In the early morning of March 8, 2020, Stutsman County Sheriff Deputy Brian Davis conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle driven by Nygaard. Davis asked for Nygaard’s license, proof of insurance and vehicle registration. After receiving the documents, Davis asked Nygaard if she had been drinking. Nygaard said she had two drinks an hour prior to the traffic stop. Nygaard would be taken to the Stutsman County Correctional Center. Nygaard was given an implied consent advisory and requested a chemical breath test. Nygaard consented to taking the test. During the first breath sample, Nygaard obstructed the air flow and provided an insufficient sample. Nygaard was told she could take the test a second time but if a sufficient sample was not provided, a citation would issue for DUI-Refusal. Nygaard agreed to take the second test and again provided an insufficient sample. The City of Jamestown charged Nygaard with DUI-Refusal. Nygaard argued on appeal that the plain meaning of N.D.C.C. 39-08-01(1)(f) required advice of criminal penalties to drivers before they could be charged with refusing a chemical breath test. The North Dakota Supreme Court found the plain language of N.D.C.C. 39-08-01(1)(f) did not require advice of criminal penalties to drivers before they can be charged with refusing a chemical breath test. The criminal judgment was thus affirmed. View "City of Jamestown v. Nygaard" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Galvanizers, Inc., and K and K Construction and Repair, Inc., appealed the dismissal of their action against Paul Kautzman seeking to quiet title to real property. Plaintiffs argued the district court erred in dismissing their quiet title action and failed to make sufficient findings to understand the evidentiary and theoretical basis for its decision. After review of the trial court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the court’s findings were sufficient to support its decision dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint. View "Galvanizers, et al. v. Kautzman, et al." on Justia Law

RTS Shearing, LLC (“RTS”) appealed the dismissal of its action with prejudice after the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant BNI Coal, Ltd. (“BNI”). RTS provided rock crushing services for use on various construction projects. BNI operated a coal mine near Center, North Dakota. In February 2019, RTS filed suit against BNI, claiming breach of contract after BNI canceled purchase orders for RTS to provide rock-crushing services to BNI. BNI asserted it exercised its right to cancel the balance of the purchase orders under the Terms and Conditions that were incorporated by reference in the purchase orders. In January 2020, BNI moved for summary judgment, arguing RTS’s breach-of-contract claim failed and the action should have been dismissed because the two purchase orders at issue had also incorporated BNI’s standard “Terms and Conditions,” which allowed for the cancellation. In August 2020, the district court held a hearing on BNI’s motion. The court granted summary judgment in favor of BNI and dismissed RTS’s action with prejudice. Before the North Dakota Supreme Court, RTS argued the district court erred by entering summary judgment dismissing its complaint for breach of contract. The dispositive issue was whether BNI’s separate “Terms and Conditions” were incorporated by reference into the March 2015 and July 2015 purchase orders. On this record, the Supreme Court concluded as a matter of law the undisputed facts established that both RTS and BNI had knowledge of and assented to the incorporated terms referenced in the purchase orders and that RTS was not excused from the Terms and Conditions merely on the basis of its failure to request and review a copy from BNI before performing under the purchase orders. The district court, therefore, did not err in granting BNI’s summary judgment motion. View "RTS Shearing v. BNI Coal" on Justia Law

Ross Thomas appeals from a district court order denying his application for postconviction relief. In 2017, the State charged Thomas with felonious restraint, terrorizing, aggravated assault, and reckless endangerment. A jury found Thomas guilty of terrorizing, not guilty of aggravated assault and reckless endangerment, and did not reach a verdict on felonious restraint. Thomas appealed the terrorizing conviction. This Court reversed and remanded, concluding the district court erred in failing to conduct a hearing relating to juror misconduct. On remand, the State retried Thomas on the felonious restraint charge. The jury found Thomas guilty, and the district court sentenced him to ten years in prison. In July 2020, Thomas applied for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. He alleged his trial attorney failed to request a self-defense instruction, failed to obtain and offer video evidence, failed to call certain witnesses and failed to argue against double jeopardy. Finding no grounds upon which to grant relief, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the order denying postconviction relief. View "Thomas v. North Dakota" on Justia Law