Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Sean Kovalevich appealed a district court order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a). Kovalevich was subject to a pre-filing order prohibiting him from filing “any new litigation or any new documents in existing litigation” without first obtaining leave of the court. The North Dakota Supreme Court treated the court’s current order as denying Kovalevich leave of court to file new documents. Orders denying leave to file were not appealable. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed Kovalevich’s appeal. View "North Dakota v. Kovalevich" on Justia Law

Bradley Morales appealed a criminal judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to murder. Morales was convicted by jury of murdering his ex-girlfriend. He was granted a new trial after it was found Morales’ right to a public trial was violated. On the fourth day of the new trial, Morales sought to enter a guilty plea. In verifying his plea was made “knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently,” Morales made a lengthy statement, admitting to stabbing the victim. He apologized to the victim’s family. Roughly nine months later, Morales moved to withdraw his plea. He was thereafter sentenced to 35 years imprisonment. Morales argued the district court erred by not addressing a statement he made at the sentencing hearing indicating he was suffering from depression and anxiety. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Morales’ motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "North Dakota v. Morales" on Justia Law

Milo Blaine Whitetail was convicted by jury of intentional or knowing murder. Whitetail argued on appeal the evidence is insufficient to prove that he was not in a dissociative mental state at the time of the murder due to his post-traumatic stress disorder. Whitetail also argued the State did not prove he acted knowingly or intentionally. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Whitetail" on Justia Law

Dean Hatzenbuehler appealed an order revoking sentencing and judgment imposing a new sentence. In August 2022, Hatzenbuehler pled guilty to conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance, a class B felony; delivery of a controlled substance, a class B felony; possession of a controlled substance-methamphetamine, a class A misdemeanor; and possession of drug paraphernalia, a class A misdemeanor He argued the district court’s findings of fact on the revocation of his probation were clearly erroneous and the court erred by not adequately considering the statutory sentencing factors. The North Dakota concluded the court’s findings supporting revocation were not clearly erroneous, the court adequately considered the statutory factors, and the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence upon revocation. View "North Dakota v. Hatzenbuehler" on Justia Law

William Kirkpatrick appealed a district court judgment affirming the North Dakota Department of Transportation’s suspension of his driving privileges for one year for driving under the influence. Kirkpatrick argued the Department lacked authority to suspend his driving privileges because the arresting officer failed to forward the results of an analytical blood test report performed at the request of the officer to the Department. The North Dakota Supreme Court concurred: Kirkpatrick’s alcohol-related breath and blood test results needed to be provided to the Department, and without them the Department did not have authority to suspend Kirkpatrick’s driver’s license. The Court reversed the district court’s judgment affirming the Department’s decision suspending Kirkpatrick’s driving privileges for one year. View "Kirkpatrick v. NDDOT" on Justia Law

Michael Johnson was convicted by jury of felonious restraint and domestic violence-bodily injury. On appeal, Johnson argued the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict on the charge of felonious restraint. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Sidhassan Yaqub-Sharif Isac appealed an order denying his application for post-conviction relief. Isac was born in Somalia. He came to the United States when he was eight years old and has lived in country for roughly 20 years. He was not a United States citizen. In 2020, he was charged with possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving under suspension. He pleaded guilty and the district court sentenced him to 360 days imprisonment. He did not appeal. At the time of his plea he had roughly 25 other convictions, including drug and alcohol related crimes. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement subsequently detained Isac pending proceedings to deport him to Somalia. Isac filed an application for post-conviction relief seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. He alleged Fourth Amendment violations based upon the length of the traffic stop leading to the charges. He later filed an amended petition asserting he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of a conviction. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Isac v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Arthur Kollie was convicted by jury of murder, robbery, and aggravated assault. In June 2021, Jane Doe was walking from her father’s home to her mother’s home in south Fargo when she was attacked in an alley. A truck driver driving through the alley saw Doe lying on the ground, unconscious, with Kollie beside her with one hand on her throat and the other hand pinching her nose. Both Doe and Kollie were covered in bloodstains. The truck driver called 911 and approached Kollie. After the truck driver told Kollie that he “need[ed] to wait for the cops,” Kollie “took off,” fleeing the scene. The medical examiner testified that Doe was stabbed 25 times then strangled. She died three days later. The autopsy report listed the cause of death as asphyxia by strangulation, complicated by multiple sharp force injuries. Kollie argued his constitutional rights to a public trial were violated when the district court held several bench conferences within view of the public, but outside the hearing of the public and without an adequate record being made available. In addition, Kollie argued the district court erred in instructing the jury on the murder count. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Kollie" on Justia Law

The State appeals from a district court’s judgment granting post-conviction relief to Cassandra Black Elk. The State argues the court erred by relying on hearsay testimony and in finding defense counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness when counsel advised Black Elk she could deal with the not yet disclosed results of an autopsy after her guilty plea had been entered and accepted. The court also determined Black Elk would not have pled guilty but for this improper advice from counsel. The North Dakota Supreme Court found the State failed to object and assert Black Elk’s testimony regarding the statements of her counsel were hearsay and it declined to review the issue on appeal. The district court’s finding of ineffective assistance of counsel met the factual and legal requirements under Strickland. The court’s judgment granting post-conviction relief and vacating Black Elk’s conviction was affirmed. View "Black Elk v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Ronald Wootan appealed a district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the State. Wootan was initially charged with murder, attempted murder, terrorizing, reckless endangerment, and preventing arrest or discharge of other duties. As part of a plea agreement, the State moved to amend the murder charge to manslaughter. Wootan applied for post-conviction relief, asserting he was entitled to withdraw his guilty plea due to ineffective assistance of counsel. The State moved for summary judgment. At the scheduled evidentiary hearing the district court determined the motion for summary judgment was untimely. The court exercised its discretion to allow the motion and provided Wootan the appropriate time to respond. Wootan responded to the motion and the court issued an order dismissing Wootan’s post-conviction application finding Wootan had failed to identify a material fact at issue. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined Wootan clearly asserted that, but for counsel’s misinformation about his sentences running concurrently, he would not have entered a guilty plea and instead would have insisted on going to trial. While Wootan did not provide an affidavit after the State moved for summary judgment, Wootan’s verified application for post-conviction relief could be treated as an affidavit to provide evidence to resist summary judgment. The Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Wootan’s claim asserting his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to reduce the terms of the plea agreement to writing. However, the district court erred in granting summary judgment on Wootan’s claim asserting his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by stating Wootan’s sentences would run concurrently, because Wootan raised a genuine issue as to a material fact. The case was therefore remanded for the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing. View "Wootan v. North Dakota" on Justia Law