McMorrow v. State

20030007 Patrick T. McMorrow, Petitioner and Appellant
v.
State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

Appeal from: District Court, East Central Judicial District, Cass County
Judge Ralph Robert Erickson
Nature of Action: Post-Conviction Relief
Counsel:
Appellant: Monty Grant Mertz
Appellee: Lori Sue Mickelson , Asst. State's Attorney
Appellee: Trent William Mahler , Asst. State's Attorney
Term: 06/2003   Argument: 06/11/2003  Waived
ND cite: 2003 ND 134
NW cite: 667 N.W.2d 577


Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether The Trial Court's Finding that Mr. McMorrow Failed to Prove Prosecutorial Misconduct was Clearly Erroneous.
II. Whether The Trial Court's Finding that Mr. McMorrow Failed to Prove Relevance of the Civil Restraining Order Proceedings was Clearly Erroneous.
III. Whether The Trial Court's Finding that Mr. McMorrow Failed to Prove that He was Prejudiced by Excessive Bail was Clearly Erroneous.
IV. Whether The Trial Court's Finding that Mr. McMorrow Failed to Prove a Rule 16 Violation was Clearly Erroneous.
V. Whether The Trial Court's Finding that Mr. McMorrow Failed to Prove Ineffective Assistance of Counsel was Clearly Erroneous.
VI. Whether the Trial Court's Denial of Mr. McMorrow's Several Pre-Hearing Motions was an Abuse of Discretion.

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
Whether the Trial Court's finding that Mr. McMorrow failed to prove prosecutorial misconduct was clearly erroneous?
Whether the Trial Court's finding that Mr. McMorrow failed to prove relevance of the Civil Restraining Order Proceedings was clearly erroneous?
Whether the Trial Court's finding that Mr. McMorrow failed to prove that he was prejudiced by excessive bail was clearly erroneous?
Whether the Trial Court's finding that Mr. McMorrow failed to prove a Rule 16 violation was clearly erroneous?
Whether the Trial Court's finding that Mr. McMorrow failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel was clearly erroneous?
Whether the Trial Court's denial of Mr. McMorrow's several pre-hearing motions was an abuse of discretion?

Add Docket 20030007 RSS Add Docket 20030007 RSS

Docket entries:
101/06/2003 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 01/03/2003
201/06/2003 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 01/03/2003
302/24/2003 DISK - TRA of 12-20-03 (e-mailed)
402/21/2003 TRANSCRIPT DATED - 12-20-03
502/25/2003 RECORD ON APPEAL & Seprate #39 --Pl. Exh. 1 - transcript of proceedings in Larson v. McMorrow
602/25/2003 rec'd with these records were: Felony Schedule Orders (SA copies) & Tapes
704/02/2003 APPELLANT BRIEF
804/02/2003 APPELLANT APPENDIX
904/03/2003 DISK - atb
1005/02/2003 APPELLEE BRIEF
1105/05/2003 DISK - aeb (e-mailed)
1205/29/2003 MOTION FOR WAIVER OF OA (letter dated 5-28-03 from Mr. Mertz stating AT & AE wish to waive OA)
1305/30/2003 Letter dated 5-28-03 from Ms. Mickelson confirming that AT and AE wish to waive OA)
1406/02/2003 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (OA waived - AT/AE). Granted
1506/11/2003 APPEARANCES: submitted on briefs
1606/11/2003 ARGUED: submitted on briefs (Vol. Y; Page 118)
1708/20/2003 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
1808/20/2003 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Neumann, William A.
1908/21/2003 Order/Judgment Mailed to Parties
2009/11/2003 MANDATE
2109/15/2003 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
2210/29/2009 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 07/29/2014