Wilson v. State
Scott Robert Wilson, Petitioner and Appellant
State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
South Central Judicial District,
Judge Thomas J. Schneider
|Nature of Action:||Post-Conviction Relief|
|Term:||04/2013  Argument: 04/29/2013 11:00am|
|ND cite:||2013 ND 124|
833 N.W.2d 492
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
I. Whether Wilson was prejudiced by the trial court's failure to notify him of his right to appeal?
a. The lower court erred by failing to apply this Court's standard from Carmody.
b. Even under Peguero, the lower court erred in finding that Wilson was not prejudiced by the trial court's failure to notify him of his right to appeal.
II. Whether Wilson waived his right to counsel?
a. Under a clearly erroneous standard of review, the lower court erred in concluding Wilson voluntarily, knowingly, or intelligently waived his right to counsel.
b. Under a de novo standard of review, the trial court unreasonably denied Wilson his constitutional right to counsel.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1.Wilson's application for post-conviction relief is a misuse of process.
2.Wilson's convictions were not obtained in violation of the laws or the Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota.
a.The Court should adopt the United States Supreme Court ruling in Peguero to review an error of the trial court under Rule 32 of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal.
b.Wilson was not prejudiced when the trial court failed to give him notice of his right to appeal.
c.The trial court correctly denied Wilson's request for court appointed counsel.
|Add Docket 20120425 RSS|
|1||12/07/2012||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 12/04/2012|
|2||12/07/2012||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 12/04/2012|
|3||12/07/2012||This case is consolidated w/20120426-428. Make all entries except ROA, DIS & MAN in this case.|
|4||12/07/2012||Assignment of counsel received (Rosenquist)|
|5||12/11/2012||Acknowledgment of receipt of order for transcript|
|6||12/11/2012||DISK-tra (9/25/12) e-mailed|
|7||12/12/2012||TRANSCRIPT DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 2012, & C.O.S.|
|8||12/21/2012||TRANSCRIPTS DATED December 07, 2011 & February 15, 2011 & C.O.S.|
|9||12/21/2012||DISK-tra (December 07, 2011 & February 15, 2011) e-mailed|
|10||01/03/2013||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED JANUARY 2, 2013(ENTRY NOS.1-43)|
|11||01/03/2013||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED JANUARY 2, 2013(ENTRY NOS.1-62)(underlying record)|
|12||01/29/2013||APPELLANT BRIEF (PDF)|
|13||01/29/2013||E-FILED BRIEF (PDF)|
|16||02/01/2013||Recv'd $25 surcharge for ATB & ATA (Receipt #21682)|
|17||02/07/2013||Rcv'd 7 copies of ATB from CSD|
|18||02/07/2013||Rcv'd 6 copies of ATA from CSD|
|19||02/08/2013||Rcv'd cos of atb on Appellant|
|24||03/01/2013||Received 7 copies of AEB from Central Duplicating|
|25||03/01/2013||Received 6 copies of AEA from Central Duplicating|
|26||03/01/2013||Received $42 e-filing surcharge for AEB & AEA (Receipt #21720)|
|27||03/18/2013||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|28||04/29/2013||APPEARANCES: Patrick Rosenquist/Jessica Binder|
|29||04/29/2013||ARGUED: P. Rosenquist/J. Binder|
|30||04/29/2013||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|32||07/18/2013||UNANIMOUS OPINION: Sandstrom, Dale V.|
|33||07/18/2013||CONCUR IN THE RESULT: Crothers, Daniel John: CONCUR|
|34||07/19/2013||Judgment Sent to Parties|
|36||08/27/2013||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|37||09/04/2013||AMENDED RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|