Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Marlon Comes appealed an order denying his application for post-conviction relief. He argued his sentence was illegal because it failed to accurately reflect credit for “good time” and the corresponding sentence reduction, and his sentence failed to properly account for time he was held in custody prior to sentencing. The district court found that the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“Department of Corrections”) had exclusive discretion to determine whether an offender should be credited with a performance-based sentence reduction. The court also found the statutory remedy of post-conviction relief pursuant to N.D.C.C. ch. 29-32.1 was not available to provide relief for disciplinary measures, custodial treatment, or other violations of civil rights of a convicted person occurring after the imposition of sentence. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concurred with the trial court's analysis and affirmed the order dismissing Comes’ application for post-conviction relief. View "Comes v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

J.B. appealed a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights. On appeal, J.B. argued that the district court erred in terminating her parental rights, because the qualified expert witness’s testimony did not satisfy the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The North Dakota Supreme Court remanded for additional, specific findings under the ICWA: "A qualified expert witness’s expressed preference to deny termination of parental rights does not preclude the court from making findings sufficient to satisfy ICWA and ordering termination." View "Interest of K.B." on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order granting Marco Van Der Heever’s motion to suppress evidence, arguing the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Van Der Heever’s vehicle. Van Der Heever was charged with driving under the influence of intoxicating liquors. He moved to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of his vehicle being stopped by law enforcement. The district court held a hearing, where Sergeant Cory Mortensen provided the sole testimony. Mortensen testified he was contacted by dispatch to respond to a possibly impaired driver at approximately 12:30 a.m. on June 28, 2020. Dispatch informed him that the reporting party, John Towes, stated a silver F-150 pickup was traveling on Central Avenue in Walhalla, North Dakota, stopping and reversing in the middle of the road. Towes reported the driver’s actions caused him to stop and reverse his vehicle to avoid being hit by the F-150. Mortensen testified that Central Avenue was the road between the two bars in Walhalla, and that Towes reported the F-150 was parked “up town at the local bar all afternoon.” Mortensen stated that he was personally familiar with Towes from prior community contacts. After receiving Towes’ phone number from dispatch, Mortensen called him. Towes identified the driver as male and believed he was probably impaired. Towes did not know where the F-150 was located at that time, but called back shortly after and said the vehicle was parked on 7th Street, just north of Delano Avenue. Towes was parked down the road, watching the F-150, and he told Mortensen the driver of the F-150 was outside of his parked vehicle. After the suppression hearing, the district court granted Van Der Heever’s motion to suppress, concluding that Mortensen should have corroborated some of Towes’ report before stopping Van Der Heever’s vehicle. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court misapplied the law when it concluded Mortensen needed to further corroborate Towes’ information. Under the totality of the circumstances, Mortensen had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and the court erred by granting Van Der Heever’s motion to suppress evidence. View "North Dakota v. Van Der Heever" on Justia Law

Amanda Johnshoy, now known as Amanda Fry, appealed a district court order denying her motion to modify primary residential responsibility. Fry and Zachary Johnshoy divorced in November 2014, and the court awarded Johnshoy with primary residential responsibility of the parties’ two minor children. Since the divorce, Johnshoy moved to a different city within North Dakota. Fry remarried following the divorce. In June 2020, Fry moved to modify primary residential responsibility and parenting time and requested an evidentiary hearing. Fry included two affidavits with the motion: her own and one from the parties’ elder child. The district court denied the motion to modify primary residential responsibility, concluding that Fry had not established a prima facie case warranting an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Fry argued the district court erred in concluding that her affidavit and her child’s affidavit had not established a prima facie case warranting an evidentiary hearing. “[T]o establish a prima facie case that modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the children requires more than the improved circumstances of the party moving to modify primary residential responsibility.” The North Dakota Supreme Court found Fry’s affidavit did not provide facts showing how a change in circumstances affected the children. "Fry’s affidavit fails to show how a change in custody is necessary to serve the best interests of the children and thus fails to establish a prima facie case for modification of primary residential responsibility." Accordingly, judgment was affirmed. View "Johnshoy v. Johnshoy" on Justia Law

Bashir Bare Abdi appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief, seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. Abdi was charged with luring minors in violation of N.D.C.C. 12.1-20- 05.1, a class B felony, on January 30, 2019. This charge resulted from Abdi’s alleged communications with a person he believed to be a fourteen year-old girl, but was in fact an undercover agent, after Abdi arranged to engage in sexual activity with her in exchange for a candy bar. On appeal, Abdi argued the court erred because he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and as a result his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. Specifically, Abdi argued he would not have entered a plea of guilty had he been properly advised on the virtual certainty of deportation. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Abdi v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Brandon Schweitzer appealed from a jury verdict and a criminal judgment convicting him of aggravated assault. In 2019, Schweitzer used his cane to hit the victim's arm, fracturing it. Schweitzer argued that by misplacing his cane in evidence, the State violated the Brady rule and his due process rights. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the Brady rule did not apply because Schweitzer alleged the State lost his case, not that the State suppressed it because it was favorable to him. The Court found Schweitzer did not meet his burden to prove the State acted in bad faith when it lost the cane, nor was there evidence the police consistently lost evidence. He claimed the State was merely “negligent in its duty to keep evidence safe and secure.” The district court found no evidence that the State deliberately destroyed the cane, as the standard required, or made it unavailable to thwart Schweitzer’s defense. Thus, Schweitzer failed to show the State acted in bad faith. Therefore, the State did not violate Schweitzer’s due process rights when it lost the cane. Judgment was affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Schweitzer" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Rhonda Pennington, Steven Nelson, Donald Nelson, and Charlene Bjornson appealed a judgment entered after the district court determined their oil and gas leases with Continental Resources had not expired and remained in effect. The Plaintiffs argued the district court erred in concluding the leases had not expired. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the issues the Plaintiffs raised on appeal were precluded under the law of the case doctrine and mandate rule. View "Pennington, et al. v. Continental Resources" on Justia Law

K.S. appealed a district court order approving the sale of S.M.H.’s interest in real property and striking from the court record an affidavit filed by K.S. K.S. argued the court erred by determining that a document K.S. claimed transferred a majority of S.M.H.’s interest in the real property to K.S. failed to meet the statutory requirements for a valid conveyance under N.D.C.C. sections 47-10-01 and 47-10-05; the court erred in striking her affidavit from the record; and the court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to Lutheran Social Services. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Guardianship and Conservatorship of S.M.H." on Justia Law

The State appealed from an order of dismissal after the district court dismissed conspiracy charges against Kristen Howard and Oshaya Watkins for lack of probable cause. The State charged Howard and Watkins with conspiracy to commit burglary and conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, both class C felonies. Kelly recorded a conversation on her phone that she had with Howard and Watkins at their workplace in Minot. Howard supervised Kelly and Watkins and called them in on their day off for this meeting. Howard and Watkins were speaking when Kelly arrived. Howard told Kelly that Howard’s husband was having an affair with “Jane Doe,” a service member in the U.S. Air Force. Howard allegedly planned to get back at Doe for having the affair with Howard’s husband. The three would then take Doe drinking in Minot and slip her a drug. Watkins was supposed to get Doe’s keys, and Howard would then go back to Doe’s apartment and “plant paraphernalia and drug items.” The apparent purpose of drugging Doe and planting items was to get Doe in trouble with the Air Force. Howard told Kelly and Watkins she had a drug they could use. After the conversation ended, Kelly reported it to the Ward County Sheriff’s Office. A deputy contacted Howard’s husband, who confirmed he had an affair with Doe. The deputy also spoke to Doe, who said she received text messages about meeting up with others that evening. However, the person texting Doe told Doe her name was Mandy, and the phone number did not come back to Howard or Watkins. No meeting took place. After a preliminary hearing, the district court dismissed the charges without prejudice for lack of probable cause. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court found the trial court erred when it found no evidence establishing probable cause that Howard and Watkins committed an overt act to effect the alleged conspiracy. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Howard" on Justia Law

PLS Services appealed a district court’s amended summary judgment dismissing its complaint against Valueplus Consulting, LLC, relating to a mortgage priority dispute. In February 2014, PLS was assigned two mortgages executed June 29, 2012, and recorded on July 10, 2012, against certain Williams County real property owned by Clear Creek Retirement Plan LLC. The mortgages and assignments to PLS contained incorrect legal descriptions and were therefore recorded in an errant tract index. Clear Creek and Valueplus executed a June 2012 purchase agreement whereby Valueplus agreed to purchase the subject property from Clear Creek. In January 2014, Fidelity Capital Services LLC assigned to Valueplus a mortgage against the subject property. The mortgage contained the correct legal description and was recorded in August 2013. In 2017, Valueplus sued Clear Creek to foreclose the mortgage. PLS moved to intervene, asserting its mortgages had priority. The district court denied PLS’s motion, and Valueplus subsequently purchased the subject property in June 2019. PLS sued Clear Creek, Valueplus, and others, alleging it had a superior interest in the subject property. PLS sought reformation and foreclosure of its mortgages. Valueplus denied the allegation and moved for summary judgment, arguing it purchased the property in good faith because it was unaware of PLS’s mortgages containing an incorrect legal description. PLS opposed Valueplus’ motion, asserting Valueplus was not a good faith purchaser. The district court granted Valueplus’ motion, concluding Valueplus was a good faith purchaser of the property and did not have actual knowledge or constructive notice of PLS’s mortgages. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the summary judgment against PLS as final under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b), but that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Instead of addressing PLS’s request for additional discovery in its order granting summary judgment, the district court concluded an affidavit was “uncontradicted” and Valueplus had no actual knowledge of PLS’s mortgages. However, PLS did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the statements made in the affidavit or depose the affiant. View "PLS Services v. Clear Creek Retirement Plan, et al." on Justia Law