State v. Morales
- State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
Bradley Joe Morales, Defendant and Appellant
- Case Type
- CRIMINAL APPEAL : HOMICIDE
- Appeal From
Case No. 2017-CR-01865
North Central Judicial District, Ward County
Douglas L. Mattson
Parties' Statement of Issues
I. Whether the district court created a structural error by denying Bradley Morales’ constitutional right to a public trial.
II.Whether the district court committed reversable error bygranting the State’s Motion to Dismiss in Case Number 51-2017-CR-01779.
III.Whether the district court committed reversable error by denying Bradley Morales’ constitutional right to self-representation.
1. The District Court did not create structural error and did not deny the defendant the right to a public trial.
2. The District Court did not error in granting the State’s Motion to Dismiss.
3. The District Court did not deny the defendant’s constitutional right to represent himself.
Bradley Joe Morales appeals a district court criminal judgment following a jury verdict finding him guilty of murdering his ex-girlfriend.
Morales argues a motion hearing, evidentiary hearing, and parts of his trial were closed to the public without the court performing the proper analysis under the Waller factors. He also argues the court should not have permitted the State to dismiss his original charge and convene a new trial because it was a ploy to judge-shop. Finally, Morales argues he should have been allowed to represent himself.
The State responds that the Waller factors were either found by the court or the lack of the findings was trivial. The State argues the dismissal was not a ploy to judge-shop and was an appropriate request on the State’s part. Finally, the State argues the court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting Morales from conducting the remainder of his trial pro se.
|APPELLEE||STATE'S ATTORNEY||Rozanna Christine Larson - 05294|
|APPELLANT||PRO SE||Bradley Joe Morales|
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||10/02/2018||NOTICE OF APPEAL : 10/02/2018|
|2||10/02/2018||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT : 10/03/2018|
|3||10/03/2018||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|4||10/03/2018||Notice served on Steven D. Mottinger and Rozanna C. Larson|
|5||10/10/2018||Rec'd Notice of Assignment of Counsel by Kiara Kraus-Parr, Counsel for Appellant.|
|6||11/01/2018||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED OCT. 31, 2018 (ENT. NOS. 1-171, 175 - 244, 246-250, 252-280, 283-295)|
|7||11/01/2018||NOT REC'D 172-174, 245, 251, 281, 282|
|8||11/05/2018||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPTS DATED 8-24-17, 11-2-17, 2-15-18,3-15-18, 3-17-18, 4-6-18, 5-21-18, 5-22-18,|
|9||11/05/2018||5-23-18, 5-24-18, 9-28-18 & C.O.S.|
|10||11/08/2018||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT|
|11||11/09/2018||MOT. EXT/TIME TRANSCRIPT|
|12||11/09/2018||ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE - Granted : 12/14/2018|
|13||11/08/2018||Transcripts dated 5-17-18 (Chamber Hearing) and 5-18-18 (Chamber Hearing) & C.O.S Rec'd|
|14||12/07/2018||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED MAY 17 & 18, 2018 (1 VOL.) W/ REDACTION KEY, & C.O.S.|
|15||01/16/2019||ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED (ENTRY NOS. 296-318)|
|20||01/22/2019||Rec'd $25 ATB surcharge (Receipt No. 26851)|
|21||01/25/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of ATB from Central Duplicating|
|22||01/25/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of ATA from Central Duplicating|
|23||02/15/2019||Appellee's Brief non-compliant (over word limit)|
|25||02/19/2019||Rec'd revised AEB|
|27||02/19/2019||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|28||02/21/2019||Rec'd $25 surcharge for AEB (receipt #26909)|
|29||02/21/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of AEB and AEA from Central Duplicating?|
|30||03/08/2019||MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL BY KIARA C. KRAUS-PARR|
|31||03/08/2019||ACTION BY SUPREME COURT - Granted|
|32||03/08/2019||No Appearance by AT, policy of NDSP will not transport inmate for OA, waived under (e) and (f)|
|33||03/14/2019||MOTION FOR STAY/CONTINUANCE OF APPEAL FILED BY APPELLANT MORALES|
|34||03/15/2019||ACTION BY SUPREME COURT - Denied|
|35||03/19/2019||APPEARANCES: Rozanna C. Larson; appellant waived under N.D.R.App.P. 34(e) and (f)|
|36||03/19/2019||ARGUED: Rozanna C. Larson; appellant waived under N.D.R.App.P. 34(e) and (f)|
|37||03/19/2019||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|