Gray v. State
Robert Gray, 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:||06/2013  Argument: 06/10/2013|
|ND cite:||2013 ND 87|
832 N.W.2d 334
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
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|
|1||02/26/2013 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 02/22/2013|
|2||02/26/2013 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 02/22/2013|
|3||03/19/2013 TRANSCRIPT DATED JANUARY 25, 2013 & C.O.S.|
|4||03/19/2013 DISK-Transcript (1-25-13)(e-mailed)|
|5||03/22/2013 ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED MARCH 21, 2013 (ENTRY NOS. 1-23, 26-66,& 68-190)|
|6||03/22/2013 Items not sent (ENTRY NOS. 24-court reporter tape & 25,67-deleted)|
|7||04/27/2013 APPELLANT BRIEF (PDF)|
|8||04/27/2013 E-FILED BRIEF (PDF)|
|9||04/27/2013 APPELLANT APPENDIX|
|10||04/27/2013 E-FILED APPENDIX|
|11||05/01/2013 Received $25 surcharge for e-filed ATB and $18.50 for ATA (Receipt # 21831)|
|12||05/10/2013 Additional $2 due for ATA surcharge (Reciept # 21847)|
|13||05/08/2013 Rcv'd 7 copies of ATB & 6 copies of ATA from CSD|
|14||05/16/2013 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|15||05/23/2013 APPELLEE BRIEF|
|16||05/23/2013 DISK (AEB)(e-mailed)|
|17||05/24/2013 Rule 24 N.D.R.App.P. supplemental statement by indigent defendant(PDF)|
|18||05/24/2013 E-FILED BRIEF (PDF)|
|19||05/24/2013 DISK NONCOMPLIANCE|
|20||05/29/2013 Rcv'd 7 copies of Supplemental Brief of Indigent Appellant from CSD|
|21||06/10/2013 APPEARANCES: Adam L. Fleischman; Lloyd C. Suhr|
|22||06/10/2013 ARGUED: Adam L. Fleischman; Lloyd C. Suhr|
|23||06/10/2013 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|24||06/12/2013 MOTION to reconsider denial of a supplemental appendix of indigent defendant|
|25||06/14/2013 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE. Denied|
|26||06/19/2013 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED BY SUMMARY DISP.|
|27||06/19/2013 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Per Curiam|
|28||06/20/2013 Judgment Sent to Parties|
|29||07/03/2013 PETITION FOR REHEARING (PDF)|
|30||07/03/2013 E-FILED BRIEF|
|31||07/05/2013 Rcv'd 7 copies of PER from CSD|
|32||07/18/2013 Denied Petition for Rehearing. Denied: 07/18/2013|
|34||08/16/2013 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|