Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Thomas Pinkney appealed a district court order granting summary dismissal of his post-conviction relief application. In 2015, Pinkney pleaded guilty to gross sexual imposition, a class A felony, and was sentenced. He subsequently filed for post-conviction relief on two occasions, in addition to filing multiple motions in his criminal case, which were denied. In April 2020, Pinkney filed the underlying application for post-conviction relief in the district court, alleging as grounds for relief: newly discovered evidence-DNA testing, actual innocence, and incompetence to plead guilty. In his application Pinkney requested to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to a jury trial. The court scheduled a hearing on his application for July 24, 2020. The State answered opposing his application and moved the court for summary dismissal of his application. The district court subsequently entered orders denying his motion for continuance and granting the State’s motion for summary dismissal. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded after the trial court record, Pinkney failed to meet his minimal burden to provide at least some competent evidence to support his claims in response to the State’s summary dismissal motion. "Instead, his filings merely suggest that his investigation is ongoing, particularly regarding his mental competence to plead guilty. Pinkney has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact. We therefore conclude the district court did not err in granting the State’s motion for summary disposition." View "Pinkney v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Yaasin Isxaaq appealed a district court order denying his applications for post-conviction relief, in which he sought to withdraw his guilty pleas in three underlying criminal cases. Isxaaq was charged with theft in June 2016, and pleaded guilty to an amended charge of disorderly conduct later that month. Isxaaq was later charged with misdemeanor sexual assault in February 2017 and pleaded guilty in March 2017. Isxaaq was then charged with misdemeanor theft, and pleaded guilty in January 2020. All three charges were class B misdemeanors. Isxaaq was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), pending deportation proceedings, on January 29, 2020. In all three cases, Isxaaq argued his guilty pleas were not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily made because he had not been properly advised on adverse immigration consequences, and because an interpreter was not used when he communicated with his attorneys. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in denying Isxaaq’s applications for post-conviction relief. View "Isxaaq v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Dennis Roehrich appealed after a jury found him guilty of harassment. In May 2019, the City of Fargo charged Roehrich with harassment, alleging Roehrich made numerous vulgar and harassing telephone calls and left similarly offensive voicemail messages for several members of the Fargo Police Department over a two-year period and continued contacting members of the police department after receiving a cease and desist letter. Roerich argued on appeal his conviction should have been reversed because Fargo’s harassment ordinance, Fargo Municipal Code section 10-0322, was unconstitutionally vague and his speech was protected by the First Amendment. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the harassment ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague and Roehrich’s conduct was not protected. View "City of Fargo v. Roehrich" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order granting Elizabeth Cochran’s motion to suppress evidence. The State argued the court erred in finding that a room used by Cochran, in a residence she shared with her son, was not a common area within the scope of a warrantless probationary search of the residence. The State also argued Cochran forfeited the opportunity to seek suppression of evidence obtained from the room by failing to object at the time of the search. Furthermore, the State argued the Court misapplied the law by requiring the State to establish the reason for the underlying probationary search. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the court’s order suppressing the evidence discovered during the search of the room. View "North Dakota v. Cochran" on Justia Law

Michael Stands was convicted by jury of possession with intent to manufacture or distribute methamphetamine. Stands argued on appeal he was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the North Dakota Constitution, his hotel room was entered in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and all evidence obtained had to be suppressed under the exclusionary rule. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Stands' conviction. View "North Dakota v. Stands" on Justia Law

North Dakota petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and issue a writ of supervision directing the district court to vacate certain orders allowing representation during a presentence investigation (PSI) related evaluation. Anthony Boldt pled guilty to three counts of incest. The district court issued an order for presentence investigation and sentencing hearing notice. The court also directed “that a Pre-sentence Report, including a psycho-sexual evaluation be prepared in this matter, prior to sentencing, by the Department of Parole and Probation.” The Department of Human Services received a referral from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation triggering the secondary process of a risk assessment to be conducted during a presentence investigation. Defense counsel was informed the Department would not allow counsel to be present during the evaluation. The district court then ordered defense counsel be allowed to be present during the evaluation and any interviews relating to the pre-sentence investigation. The State argued the defendant had no Sixth Amendment right to have counsel present. The Supreme Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction and vacated those portions of the district court’s orders which directed the Department of Human Services (the Department) to permit Boldt’s counsel to be present, and advise Boldt during psycho-sexual evaluation. View "North Dakota v. Schmidt, et al." on Justia Law

Travis Yoney appealed a district court order summarily dismissing his application for postconviction relief. He argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney’s proposed jury instructions for attempted murder included the culpability of “knowingly,” which Yoney claimed was a non-cognizable offense. The North Dakota Supreme Court recently held in Pemberton v. North Dakota, 959 N.W.2d 891, that attempted knowing murder was not a cognizable offense. The Court found Yoney failed to demonstrate he received ineffective assistance of counsel. However, on the basis of Pemberton, the Court reversed the order and remanded with instructions to vacate Yoney’s attempted murder conviction. View "Yoney v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Gary Schuler appealed after he entered a conditional guilty plea for driving under suspension, arguing the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. On October 9, 2019, Schuler was stopped by a Lincoln Police Department officer for failing to use a turn signal when Schuler exited a traffic roundabout. Schuler filed a motion to suppress challenging the legality of the stop, arguing a turn signal was not required prior to exiting a roundabout and the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him. Schuler did not make any argument regarding the requirement in N.D.C.C. 39-10-38(2) for “continuously [signaling] during not less than the last one hundred feet [30.48 meters] traveled by the vehicle before turning.” The district court denied Schuler’s motion. Finding no reversible error in that decision, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "City of Lincoln v. Schuler" on Justia Law

The North Dakota Department of Transportation appealed a district court order and a judgment reversing a Department hearing officer’s decision to suspend Yonis Hussiene’s driving privileges for a period of 180 days. Hussiene was stopped by a state trooper for running a red light. Dash camera footage from the trooper's patrol vehicle did not show the traffic light for Hussiene. Rather, it showed only the traffic light across the intersection from the trooper. The footage showd the left turn signal lights for the traffic immediately next to the trooper turning green just as Hussiene left the intersection. After Hussiene was pulled over, the trooper detected an odor of alcohol, and Hussiene acknowledged drinking that night. The trooper administered field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test, and then he arrested Hussiene for driving under the influence. After finding there were sufficient grounds to stop the vehicle and Hussiene refused the chemical breath test, a hearing officer revoked Hussiene’s license for 180 days. Hussiene appealed the hearing officer’s decision to district court, and the court reversed the hearing officer’s decision, concluding, “[T]hat a reasoning mind could not have reasonably determined that Hussiene ran a red light.” The court held, “Hoffner failed to have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that Hussiene had violated or was about to violate the law.” The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court erred when it determined there was no reasonable and articulable suspicion for the traffic stop. The trooper had a reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Hussiene for failing to stop at a red light, and the weight of the evidence showed Hussiene refused the chemical breath test. The Court therefore reversed the order and the judgment of the district court and reinstated the hearing officer’s decision. View "Hussiene v. NDDOT" on Justia Law

Alex Eggleston appealed a district court’s amended criminal judgment entered following a jury verdict finding him guilty of murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Eggleston argued his sentence was illegal because N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-09.1 and N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 51 were unconstitutionally vague as applied to him. Because Eggleston’s argument was not adequately developed and presented before the district court, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Eggleston" on Justia Law