Opinions

Dale Exploration, et al. v. Hiepler, et al. 2020 ND 140
Docket No.: 20190338
Filing Date: 6/29/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Oil, Gas and Minerals
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: Under the law of the case doctrine, a party cannot relitigate issues on a second appeal which were resolved in the first appeal or which would have been resolved if they had been properly presented in the first appeal.

A successor trustee may be substituted as a party in an action after the death of the trustee.

The death of the settlor and trustee of a revocable trust does not preclude a district court from ordering specific performance from trust property.

State v. Blake 2020 ND 139
Docket No.: 20190394
Filing Date: 6/29/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

Poole v. State 2020 ND 138
Docket No.: 20200012
Filing Date: 6/29/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court’s order dismissing an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Stoneart OFS LLC, et al. v. WSI 2020 ND 137
Docket No.: 20200063
Filing Date: 6/29/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court judgment affirming an administrative law judge’s order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5).

State v. James 2020 ND 136
Docket No.: 20190223
Filing Date: 6/29/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: The deprivation of the right to counsel is a structural error. This Court reviews an alleged denial of a defendant’s right to counsel de novo.

Rule 11 (b)(1)(C) of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure does not extend beyond the procedure for accepting a plea of guilty.

Rule 11(b)(1)(C) of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure does not impose a duty on the court to inform non-indigent defendant that the court may appoint an attorney to represent him at his own expense if he was unable to retain his own attorney.

Rule 44(a)(3) of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure permits the court to appoint an attorney to represent a non-indigent defendant at their own expense if they are unable to retain their own attorney.

A defendant knowingly and intelligently waives their right to counsel when they are informed that they will be held to the same standards as an attorney.

Objections to a search warrant cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

When an issue is not raised in the trial court, even a constitutional issue involving a defendant’s right to confront witnesses, this Court will not address the issue on appeal unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error.

Brown v. Brown 2020 ND 135
Docket No.: 20190390
Filing Date: 6/29/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A “full hearing” under N.D.C.C. § 14-07.1-02(4) requires a petitioner to prove his or her petition through testimony, rather than affidavits alone.

Oien v. State 2020 ND 134
Docket No.: 20200030
Filing Date: 6/29/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: The denial of a defendant’s application for post-conviction relief for misuse of process is affirmed pursuant to N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).

State v. Bethancorth 2020 ND 133
Docket No.: 20200020
Filing Date: 6/29/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment for criminal trespass entered after a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Kremer v. State 2020 ND 132
Docket No.: 20190408
Filing Date: 6/29/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: To establish prejudice under Strickland in a plea bargain situation, the petitioner must allege facts that, if proven, would support a conclusion that rejection of the plea bargain would have been rational because valid defenses existed, a suppression motion could have undermined the prosecution’s case, or there was a realistic potential for a lower sentence. A defendant’s subjective, self-serving statement that, with competent advice, he would have insisted on going to trial is insufficient to establish prejudice under Strickland in a plea bargain situation.
The provisions of N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 are mandatory, and substantial compliance is required to ensure a defendant knowingly and voluntarily enters a guilty plea. Although N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 does not require ritualistic compliance, a court must substantially comply with the rule’s procedural requirements to ensure a defendant is entering a voluntary and intelligent guilty plea.

Avery v. Boysen 2020 ND 131
Docket No.: 20190199
Filing Date: 6/29/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: A party seeking relief in motions for reconsideration and for new trial has the burden to affirmatively establish the district court abused its discretion denying the motions.
The district court has broad discretion over the presentation of evidence and conduct of a trial, in addition to whether to grant a motion for a continuance, and the court’s decision will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.