Opinions

Diop v. Altepeter, et al. 2025 ND 160
Docket No.: 20240285
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Parenting Responsibility
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An appeal from an order finding the appellant in contempt of court in a divorce and parental responsibility action is dismissed as untimely.

Another contempt finding and the first amended judgment appealed in the same matter are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).

Duchaine v. State 2025 ND 159
Docket No.: 20250118
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An order denying an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

State v. Pittsley 2025 ND 158
Docket No.: 20250009
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Child Abuse/Child Neglect
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury found the defendant guilty of child neglect is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

Interest of K.I.B. 2025 ND 157
Docket No.: 20250060
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Delinquency
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: The State is an aggrieved party under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.2-26 and may appeal a juvenile court's ruling exempting a juvenile adjudicated delinquent as a sexual offender from registration as a sexual offender.

This Court reviews a juvenile court's interpretation of a statute de novo. When interpreting a statute, the primary goal is to determine the intent of the statute by looking to the statute's language as a whole and giving meaning and effect to every word, phrase, and sentence.

Section 12.1-32-15(2), N.D.C.C., does not allow the court to deviate from the sexual offender registration requirement for juveniles adjudicated delinquent under N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-27.2.

Section 29-28-35, N.D.C.C., does not apply to appeals of juvenile cases because the Juvenile Court Act controls procedure in juvenile cases.

Goolsby v. Crosby 2025 ND 156
Docket No.: 20250194
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Protection/Restraining Order
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court order denying a petition for a disorderly conduct restraining order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Kraft v. State 2025 ND 155
Docket No.: 20250180
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: A motion to summarily dismiss an application for postconviction relief under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09 is analogous to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). When the State moves for summary dismissal, the motion is treated like a N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b) motion subject to the response times in N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a), which is 14 days.

A motion for summary disposition under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09.1 is analogous to and governed by the procedure for a motion for summary judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 56. When the State moves for summary disposition, the motion is treated as a N.D.R.Civ.P. 56 motion for summary judgment, which gives the petitioner thirty days to respond.

Kraft v. State 2025 ND 155
Docket No.: 20250181
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: A motion to summarily dismiss an application for postconviction relief under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09 is analogous to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). When the State moves for summary dismissal, the motion is treated like a N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b) motion subject to the response times in N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a), which is 14 days.

A motion for summary disposition under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09.1 is analogous to and governed by the procedure for a motion for summary judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 56. When the State moves for summary disposition, the motion is treated as a N.D.R.Civ.P. 56 motion for summary judgment, which gives the petitioner thirty days to respond.

State v. Benter 2025 ND 154
Docket No.: 20240287
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: In a criminal case, a defendant's notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the supreme court within 30 days after the entry of the judgment or order being appealed. The timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional and cannot be waived by the appellate court.

State v. Grewe 2025 ND 153
Docket No.: 20250010
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: An appeal from a judgment of conviction in a criminal case was untimely where it was not filed within 30 days of the judgment of conviction and no motion to extend the time to file the notice of appeal was filed. The appeal from an order denying a N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 motion was not appealable in the absence of a timely appeal from the judgment of conviction. The appeal is dismissed in accord with State v. Jenkins, 339 N.W.2d 567 (N.D. 1983).

Campbell v. State 2025 ND 152
Docket No.: 20250008
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: Under the Strickland test, an applicant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must prove two elements: (1) that their counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

Courts need not analyze both elements of the Strickland test and should resolve the case by addressing a single prong when possible.

Under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(1)(e), postconviction relief is available when evidence, not previously presented and heard, exists requiring vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice.

Applications based on newly discovered evidence are reviewed as a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 33.

To prevail on a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the defendant must show: (1) the evidence was discovered after trial, (2) the failure to learn about the evidence at the time of trial was not the result of the defendant's lack of diligence, (3) the newly discovered evidence is material to the issues at trial, and (4) the weight and quality of the newly discovered evidence would likely result in an acquittal. A motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence rests within the discretion of the trial court, and we will not reverse the court's denial of the motion unless the court has abused its discretion.