Curtiss v. State
- Spencer Kerry Curtiss, Petitioner and Appellant
State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
- Case Type
- CIVIL APPEAL : POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
- Appeal From
Case No. 2016-CV-02655
South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County
David E. Reich
Parties' Statement of Issues
I. Whether the trial court erred in granting Summary Disposition of Post-Conviction Application resulting in the denial of relief;
II. Whether the district court erred in the denial of Motion for Reconsideration;
III. Whether the district court erred in the denial of the Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence;
IV. Whether the district court erred in review and denying the Motion for Summary Judgment upon Additional Conflicts of Interest;
V. Whether the district court committed a miscarriage of justice in this legal action.
[l] Whether the district court erred in granting the State's Motion for Summary Disposition.
 Whether the district court erred in denying Curtiss's Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence.
 Whether the district court erred in denying Curtiss's Motion for Reconsideration.
 Whether the district court erred in denying Curtiss's Motion for Summary Judgment Upon Additional Conflicts of Interest.
 Whether the district court committed a miscarriage of justice in this legal action.
Spencer Curtiss appeals from an order denying his application for post-conviction relief and an order denying his motion for reconsideration and to correct his sentence.
Curtiss was convicted of gross sexual imposition in 2010. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. See State v. Curtiss, 2011 ND 175, 803 N.W.2d 834. In 2012, Curtiss applied for post-conviction relief. His application was denied and the denial was affirmed on appeal. Curtiss v. State, 2016 ND 62, 877 N.W.2d 58. In 2014, Curtiss applied for post-conviction relief a second time. His application was summarily dismissed, and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal. Curtiss v. State, 2015 ND 83, 865 N.W.2d 124. In 2016, Curtiss filed his third application for post-conviction relief, arguing there was newly discovered evidence and he was denied effective assistance of counsel in prior post-conviction proceedings. The State moved for summary disposition. After a hearing, the district court granted the State’s motion for summary dismissal of Curtiss’ claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, concluding the claim was not permitted under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09(2). A separate hearing was held on Curtiss’ claim of newly discovered evidence and the State renewed its request for summary dismissal. The court granted the State’s motion and denied Curtiss’ application for post-conviction relief. The court concluded the alleged newly discovered evidence was in existence and provided to defense counsel prior to trial, and was not “newly discovered evidence” under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(3)(a). The court also concluded the alleged “alibi” evidence could not be considered to provide an alibi for the offense and would not require vacation of the conviction. Curtiss moved for reconsideration and to correct an illegal sentence. The court denied Curtiss’ motions.
On appeal, Curtiss argues the district court erred in summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief, denying his motion for reconsideration, and denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Curtiss also contends there were conflicts of interest and the court committed a miscarriage of justice.
|APPELLEE||ASST. STATE'S ATTORNEY||Tessa Marie Vaagen - 07828|
|APPELLANT||PRO SE||Spencer K. Curtiss|
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||10/25/2018||NOTICE OF APPEAL : 10/25/2018|
|2||10/25/2018||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT : 10/29/2018|
|3||10/29/2018||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|4||10/29/2018||Notice served on Spencer K. Curtiss and Tessa M. Vaagen|
|5||11/19/2018||Rec'd $25 e-filing surcharge for ATB (receipt #26733)|
|6||11/26/2018||ELEC. ROA DATED NOVEMBER 23, 2018 (ENTRY NOS.1-54, 56-59 & 62-211) Items deleted: 55, 60 & 61|
|7||11/26/2018||1ST ELEC. SUPP. ROA DATED 11/23/18 (ENTRY NOS.98-101)(trial court 10-K-01650)(Underlying Crim. Rec)|
|8||11/28/2018||Suspension of Transcript Preparation filed by Ronda Colby, Court Reporter|
|9||11/29/2018||1ST ELEC. SUPP. AMENDED ROA DATED 11/29/18 (ENTRY NOS. 98-102) (underlying crim. rec., 10-K-01650)|
|10||12/03/2018||Resumption of Preparation of Transcript dated December 3, 2018 by Ronda Colby|
|11||12/19/2018||Electronic Transcript Dated March 13, 2018, & C.O.S. , July 17, 2018 & C.O.S.|
|12||01/16/2019||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|13||01/16/2019||ACTION BY CLERK - Granted : 02/27/2019|
|14||02/08/2019||APPELLANT BRIEF & ADDENDUM||View|
|15||02/08/2019||E-FILED BRIEF (PDF)|
|17||02/08/2019||E-FILED APPENDIX (PDF)|
|18||02/12/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of ATB back from Central Duplicating(|
|19||02/12/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of ATA back from Central Duplicating|
|21||03/14/2019||Rec'd non-substantive correction to AEB (redaction)|
|22||03/13/2019||ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED MARCH 12, 2019 (ENTRY NOS. 212-240)|
|23||03/15/2019||MOT. EXT/TIME REPLY BRIEF|
|24||03/18/2019||ACTION BY CLERK - Granted : 04/08/2019|
|25||03/19/2019||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|26||03/19/2019||NO APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT - INMATE (NDSP WILL NOT TRANSPORT)|
|27||03/19/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of AEB from CSD|
|29||03/25/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of RYB from CSD|
|30||04/02/2019||REQUEST TO WAIVE ORAL ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF APPELLEE|
|31||04/02/2019||ACTION BY SUPREME COURT - Granted|
|32||04/04/2019||Rec'd $25 for AEB (receipt #26985)|