Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Karmen Lindsey appealed a district court order summarily dismissing her application for post-conviction relief from a conviction entered after her 2007 guilty plea to a charge of murder. After review, the Supreme Court concluded Lindsey's application for post-conviction relief failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding her claims for ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct. Therefore the Court affirmed the dismissal. View "Lindsey v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Justin Yarbro appealed his conviction after a jury found him guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a child and the district court's order denying his motion for a new trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that defendant's failure to object to the admission of DNA evidence during trial and in his motion for a new trial precluded him from raising arguments on appeal about the admission of that evidence. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial on the ground of juror misconduct. View "North Dakota v. Yarbro" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Tamri Stewart appealed her conviction following a conditional plea of guilty to class C felony abuse or neglect of a child, reserving the right to challenge the district court's denial of her motion to suppress evidence. Because the facts in this case did not support the district court's decision that a police officer's entry into Stewart's home was justified by the emergency exception to the warrant requirement, the Supreme Court reversed the criminal judgment and remanded the case to allow Stewart to withdraw her guilty plea. View "North Dakota v. Stewart" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Chad Klein appealed a district court order denying his motion to correct his sentence. The Supreme Court, after review, concluded that the district court acted within the limits prescribed by statute to sentence him for gross sexual imposition (a class A felony). Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion. View "North Dakota v. Klein" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Luke Gatlin appealed his conviction following a conditional plea of guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia. Because the Supreme Court held Gatlin could not assert a violation of a third party's expectation of privacy in the home searched by police and because Gatlin failed to object to the search, it affirmed the district court judgment. View "North Dakota v. Gatlin" on Justia Law

In July 2013, a Bismarck Police Officer arrested Appellant Ducote Haynes for being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The police transported Haynes to jail, but the arresting officer did not have a copy of the correct Report and Notice form for Haynes. The officer went to the police station to obtain and fill out the proper Report and Notice. The arresting officer's shift ended shortly after he filled out the Report and Notice and he requested another officer issue the Report and Notice and deliver it to Haynes at the jail. The second officer testified he delivered the Report and Notice to the jail and placed it in an elevator for jail staff to retrieve. Haynes requested an administrative hearing regarding the revocation of his driving privileges. At the hearing, Haynes argued the Department did not have authority to revoke his license because he was not immediately issued the Report and Notice. The hearing officer found Haynes received the Report and Notice and revoked Haynes' driving privileges for 180 days. Haynes appealed the decision to the district court, arguing the hearing officer erred in finding the Department had authority to revoke his license because the Report and Notice was not immediately issued and was not personally served on him. The district court affirmed the hearing officer's decision. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Haynes v. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Adam Frank appealed a district court judgment affirming a Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision suspending Frank's driving privileges for driving under the influence of alcohol. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that proper foundation for the Intoxilyzer test results was not laid, and the administrative hearing officer erred in admitting the Intoxilyzer test results. The Court therefore reversed the district court judgment. View "Frank v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Gerald Middleton was found guilty by a jury of continuous sexual abuse of a child, a class AA felony, and corruption of a minor, a class C felony. After the trial, attorney Steven Light, now deceased, was substituted as Middleton's new counsel. Middleton then moved for a new trial. The district court denied Middleton's motion, ruling Middleton failed to include any legal arguments or facts to support his motion. Middleton was sentenced, and a judgment was subsequently entered. Light died three months after submitting the brief in support of the new trial motion. Middleton filed an application for postconviction relief, arguing his trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective on four grounds. With respect to Light, Middleton argued, "Post-trial counsel filed a substantively deficient motion for new trial thereby effectively denying Mr. Middleton direct appellate review of his case by the North Dakota Supreme Court[.]" After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Middleton's application for postconviction relief. Middleton appealed the district court order denying his application for postconviction relief, challenging only the ruling as it pertained to Light's representation. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief: "Middleton has not established the existence of meritorious issues that could have been raised in either the new trial motion or the direct appeal had a new trial motion not been filed by Light. Rather, Middleton argues prejudice should be presumed because the inadequate new trial motion effectively denied him the right to appeal." View "Middleton v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Nicholas Baatz was convicted by a jury of gross sexual imposition in 2009 and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. In 2010 Baatz filed an application for postconviction relief alleging he was denied effective assistance of counsel because no attorney was appointed for him before trial and because the attorney who finally was appointed failed to appeal his criminal conviction. The district court granted the petition insofar as Baatz requested the right to file an untimely appeal from his criminal conviction, but did not specifically address the other issues raised because "[t]estimony by Defendant at the hearing indicated his only contention at this point was his denial of a right to appeal issue and not ineffective assistance of counsel at trial." Baatz appealed from the criminal judgment and filed a supplemental brief raising the same arguments that were not specifically addressed by the district court in the postconviction order. Baatz did not appeal from the postconviction order, but the State appealed, arguing the court erred in allowing Baatz to file an untimely appeal from the criminal judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the court's decision to allow the appeal "without prejudice to Baatz's right to raise denial of his constitutional right to counsel and ineffective assistance of counsel in postconviction proceedings." No petitions for rehearing were filed. In 2012 Baatz filed a second application for postconviction relief again alleging he was denied his right to counsel before trial and effective assistance of trial counsel after counsel was appointed. Baatz also claimed he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in the prior appeal. The district court denied the application, concluding the first two grounds alleged were barred by res judicata or misuse of process and Baatz had not shown how appellate counsel was ineffective. Baatz appealed the district court order denying his postconviction application, challenging only the district court's findings on res judicata and misuse of process. He did not challenge the district court's substantive findings on his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim. On appeal, the Supreme Court determined that, under the law of the case doctrine, its Court's decision in Baatz's first case allowed Baatz to raise the claims of denial of the right to counsel and of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in a second postconviction proceeding. The case was then remanded to address the merits of these claims. On remand, the district court held no additional hearings, but addressed the merits of Baatz's claims of denial of the right to counsel and of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The district court determined Baatz waived his right to counsel at the preliminary hearing, Baatz failed to show trial counsel was ineffective, and Baatz failed to show trial counsel's alleged errors deprived him of a fair trial. Baatz appealed the district court's denial, on the merits, of his postconviction application. Finding that Baatz failed to meet his burden of showing prejudice resulting from his trial attorney's conduct, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order. View "Baatz v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Jason Gullickson appealed a district court order denying his application for postconviction relief after he pled guilty to manufacturing methamphetamine (second offense), possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver (second offense), possession of psilocybin, possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. Gullickson argued to the Supreme Court that the district court erred denying postconviction relief on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not notify him that two of his charges should not have been second offenses and failed to file a motion to suppress evidence discovered upon execution of a search warrant. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Gullickson v. North Dakota" on Justia Law