Gray v. State

20130064 Robert Gray, Petitioner and Appellant
v.
State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

Appeal from: District Court, South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County
Judge Thomas J. Schneider
Nature of Action: Post-Conviction Relief
Counsel:
Appellant: Blake Dylan Hankey
Appellee: Julie Ann Lawyer , Asst. State's Attorney
Appellant: Adam Lawrence Fleischman
Term: 06/2013   Argument: 06/10/2013  9:00am
ND cite: 2013 ND 87
NW cite: 832 N.W.2d 334

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 district court erred by finding that there was no proof that Attorney Goter's representation of Mr. Gray was ineffective.
2. Whether the record and the evidence presented clearly show that Mr. Gray should be allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas to correct a manifest injustice.
3. Whether the district court's finding that there was no merit to Mr. Gray's claims of prosecutorial misconduct and Brady violation was clearly erroneous.

SUPPLEMENTAL APPELLANT BRIEF ISSUES
A. Whether the District Court erred when it failed to correct a due process violation and obvious error, which was discovered when Bismarck Police Officer Timothy Krous ("Officer Krous") Offered new evidence by recanting his earlier false testimony, and whether the prosecution had a duty to promptly disclose or give notice that this new evidence by testimony of Officer Krous created a reasonable likelihood that Appellant is actually innocent of the offense of Escape (Count-2) in this matter.
B. Whether the District Court erred when it failed to allow Appellant to With-draw his plea of guilty on the offense of terrorizing (Count-1) and enter a plea of not guilty, as with the newly discovered evidence by the Private Investigator clearly shows ineffectiveness of counsel, a due-process claim and a Manifest Injustice. And whether the prosecution failed in its affirmative duty to learn of and disclose the prior criminal history of the alleged victim, whether requested or not by Appellant's counsel, and whether there is a reasonable likelihood, with this new evidence, that Appellant is actually innocent of the offense of terrorizing (Count-1).

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether the District Court erred in denying Gray's Application for Post-Conviction Relief?
II. Whether the District Court erred in finding that there was no merit to Gray's claims of Prosecutorial Misconduct and Brady violations?

Add Docket 20130064 RSS Add Docket 20130064 RSS

Docket entries:
102/26/2013 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 02/22/2013
202/26/2013 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 02/22/2013
303/19/2013 TRANSCRIPT DATED JANUARY 25, 2013 & C.O.S.
403/19/2013 DISK-Transcript (1-25-13)(e-mailed)
503/22/2013 ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED MARCH 21, 2013 (ENTRY NOS. 1-23, 26-66,& 68-190)
603/22/2013 Items not sent (ENTRY NOS. 24-court reporter tape & 25,67-deleted)
704/27/2013 APPELLANT BRIEF (PDF)
804/27/2013 E-FILED BRIEF (PDF)
904/27/2013 APPELLANT APPENDIX
1004/27/2013 E-FILED APPENDIX
1105/01/2013 Received $25 surcharge for e-filed ATB and $18.50 for ATA (Receipt # 21831)
1205/10/2013 Additional $2 due for ATA surcharge (Reciept # 21847)
1305/08/2013 Rcv'd 7 copies of ATB & 6 copies of ATA from CSD
1405/16/2013 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT
1505/23/2013 APPELLEE BRIEF
1605/23/2013 DISK (AEB)(e-mailed)
1705/24/2013 Rule 24 N.D.R.App.P. supplemental statement by indigent defendant(PDF)
1805/24/2013 E-FILED BRIEF (PDF)
1905/24/2013 DISK NONCOMPLIANCE
2005/29/2013 Rcv'd 7 copies of Supplemental Brief of Indigent Appellant from CSD
2106/10/2013 APPEARANCES: Adam L. Fleischman; Lloyd C. Suhr
2206/10/2013 ARGUED: Adam L. Fleischman; Lloyd C. Suhr
2306/10/2013 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
2406/12/2013 MOTION to reconsider denial of a supplemental appendix of indigent defendant
2506/14/2013 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE. Denied
2606/19/2013 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED BY SUMMARY DISP.
2706/19/2013 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Per Curiam
2806/20/2013 Judgment Sent to Parties
2907/03/2013 PETITION FOR REHEARING (PDF)
3007/03/2013 E-FILED BRIEF
3107/05/2013 Rcv'd 7 copies of PER from CSD
3207/18/2013 Denied Petition for Rehearing. Denied: 07/18/2013
3308/14/2013 MANDATE
3408/16/2013 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 07/30/2014