Chase v. State
- Lorry Van Chase, Petitioner and Appellant
State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
- Case Type
- CIVIL APPEAL : POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
- Appeal From
Case No. 2016-CV-00148
Northeast Judicial District, Rolette County
Michael Patrick Hurly
Parties' Statement of Issues
I. Did the Court err by considering Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion to be a Post-Conviction Application in order to deny it without the hearing that was requested and required under the North Dakota Rules of Court?
II. Did the District Court err by finding that Petitioner's 60(b) Motion was barred on the grounds of Res Judicata and Misuse of Process?
III. Did the District Court err by finding that no corroborating evidence was presented to support Petitioner's claim that at his attorney directed him to lie?
IV. Did the Court err by finding that Petitioner is bound by the unethical actions of his former counsel?
V. Did the Court err by denying Petitioner's motion under rule 60(b) without appointing counsel as requested?
1 The District Court did not err in denying Mr. Chase’s Motion under Rule 60(b).
2. The District Court did not err in its analysis of the contents of the motion filed by Mr. Chase and determining that the issues were barred by Res Judicata and misuse of process. 3. The District Court did not err in finding that Mr. Chase failed provide sufficient admissible evidence to support the allegations in his motion that he was directed by counsel to lie.
4. The District court did not err in acknowledging that a defendant is bound by the prior proceedings and actions as conducted with previous counsel.
5. The District Court did not commit reversible err in denying Court appointed counsel.
Lorry Van Chase appeals from a district court order denying his N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion.
In 2014, a jury convicted Chase of gross sexual imposition. He appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court and the conviction was affirmed. In September 2016, Chase filed an application for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Chase’s application, making findings on each specific allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel. Chase appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court and the order was summarily affirmed due to his failure to supply a transcript of the evidentiary hearing.
In November 2018, Chase filed a N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, alleging: (1) ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel; (2) post-conviction counsel coached Chase to lie at the evidentiary hearing; (3) post-conviction counsel violated ethics rules; (4) post-conviction counsel violated the rules of appellate procedure; and (5) post-conviction counsel attempted to cover up his errors by advising Chase not to file a federal habeas corpus petition and attempting to convince Chase to lie in a Rule 35 motion. In December 2018, Chase’s post-conviction counsel moved to withdraw as counsel. In January 2019, the district court denied relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b), finding the motion was actually an application for post-conviction relief and was barred by res judicata and misuse of process.
On appeal, Chase argues the district court erred by (1) considering his Rule 60(b) motion an application for post-conviction relief in order to deny it without a hearing; (2) denying his motion on grounds of misuse of process and res judicata; (3) finding no corroborating evidence was presented to support Chase’s claim his attorney directed him to lie; (4) finding Chase is bound by the unethical actions of his former counsel; and (5) denying his motion without appointing counsel as requested.
|APPELLEE||STATE'S ATTORNEY||Ryan James Thompson - 06621|
|APPELLANT||PRO SE||Lorry Van Chase|
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||01/17/2019||NOTICE OF APPEAL : 01/17/2019|
|2||01/22/2019||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|3||01/22/2019||Notice serverd on Lorry V, Chase and Ryan J. Thompson|
|4||01/23/2019||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED JANUARY 22, 2019 (ENTRY NOS. 1-75, 79-132)(NOT SENT: 76 & 77)|
|5||01/23/2019||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED JANUARY 22, 2019 (ENTRY NOS. 1-149, 151-172)|
|6||02/06/2019||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT : 02/11/2019|
|7||02/11/2019||ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED FEBRUARY 11, 2019 (ENTRY NOS. #133 AND #134 )|
|8||02/13/2019||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED NOVEMBER 16, 2017, REDACTION KEY DATED NOVEMBER 16, 2017 & C.O.S.|
|9||02/13/2019||2ND ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED FEBRUARY 12, 2019 (ENTRY NOS. 135-137)|
|10||02/14/2019||3RD ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED FEBRUARY 13, 2019 (ENTRY NOS.138-139)|
|15||03/25/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of AEB and AEA from Central Duplicating|
|16||03/27/2019||REQUEST TO WAIVE ORAL ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF APPELLEE|
|17||04/01/2019||Rec'd $25 surcharge for AEB (receipt #26977)|
|19||04/05/2019||Paper Filed Document|
|20||04/09/2019||No Appearance by Appellant to Oral Argument - Inmate/NDSP policy will not transport|
|21||04/09/2019||ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (request to waive oral argument on behalf of Appellee) - Granted|
|22||05/23/2019||APPEARANCES: Waived under N.D.R.App.P. 34(e) and (f)|
|23||05/23/2019||ARGUED: Waived under N.D.R.App.P. 34(e) and (f)|