State v. Gress

20110047 State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Dale Allen Gress, Defendant and Appellant

Appeal from: District Court, South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County
Judge Bruce B. Haskell
Nature of Action: Assault
Counsel:
Appellant: Pro se
Appellee: Jacob T. Rodenbiker , Asst. State's Attorney
Term: 09/2011   Argument: 08/30/2011  9:30am
ND cite: 2011 ND 233 2011 ND 193
NW cite: 807 N.W.2d 567 803 N.W.2d 607

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Listen to recording of oral argument in RM format
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
1. Whether the trial court met due process standarst to consider the voluntaryness of Appellant's guilty plea?
2. Whether the trial court abused it's discretion in it's (order) entered denying petitioner's post conviction claim?
3. Whether there exist sufficient evidence to deny a constitutional claim of falty plea agreement as to it's knowingly, intelligently, and it's voluntaryness, when it was entered and accepted by the court and appellant?

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1.Whether, as an appeal in part from a motion pursuant to either Civil Rule of Procedure 60 and in part from a motion pursuant to Criminal Rule of Procedure 11, the court abused its discretion in denying Gress's motion to suspend sentence and withdraw his guilty pleas?
2.Whether this Appeal is a misuse of process in view of Gress's failure to raise issues in this matter in a prior appeal from the criminal conviction or in his previous postconviction relief proceedings?

Add Docket 20110047 RSS Add Docket 20110047 RSS

Docket entries:
102/16/2011 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 02/14/2011
203/14/2011 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL
303/11/2011 APPELLANT BRIEF
403/11/2011 APPELLANT APPENDIX
503/11/2011 DISK NONCOMPLIANCE
604/07/2011 MOTION FOR Dismissal for Failure to Comply with Rules of Appellate Procedure
704/13/2011 Court request Appellant to address whether appeal is a misuse of process
804/13/2011 Due date for Appellee's brief stayed pending supplemental briefing
904/26/2011 Supplemental Brief
1005/04/2011 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Mtn. to dismiss). Denied
1105/06/2011 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLEE BRIEF (sua sponte)
1205/06/2011 ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 06/10/2011
1306/09/2011 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLEE BRIEF
1406/09/2011 E-FILED MOTION (MAE)
1506/10/2011 ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 06/16/2011
1606/16/2011 APPELLEE BRIEF
1706/16/2011 DISK-AEB (E-MAILED)
1807/18/2011 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT
1907/22/2011 Made 6 copies of ATA
2008/11/2011 Request to waive oral argument on behalf of the Appellee
2108/12/2011 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Request to waive oral argument denied). Denied
2208/30/2011 Clerk's office informed Appellant would not be transported
2308/30/2011 APPEARANCES: Appellant's waived under N.D.R.App.P. 34(e); Jacob T. Rodenbiker, Asst. State's Attny.
2408/30/2011 ARGUED: Rodenbiker
2508/30/2011 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
2609/15/2011 INTERIM DISPOSITION (REMANDED)
2709/15/2011 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Maring, Mary Muehlen
2809/15/2011 RETURN OF ROA TO DIST. CT.
2909/20/2011 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
3009/21/2011 Response on remand received from the Honorable Bruce B. Haskell
3109/23/2011 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL (Entry Nos. 1 - 74)
3210/21/2011 MOTION FOR APPROPRIATE REMEDY
3312/13/2011 NO ACTION TAKEN (MOTION FOR APPROPRIATE REMEDY)
3412/13/2011 DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED
3512/13/2011 SPLIT OPINION: Maring, Mary Muehlen
3612/13/2011 CONCURRING SPECIALLY: Sandstrom, Dale V.: CONCUR
3712/14/2011 Judgment Sent to Parties
3801/04/2012 MANDATE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 07/25/2014