Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Christian Hall appealed a criminal judgment entered after he conditionally pleaded guilty following the district court's denial of his motion to suppress and motion to dismiss for violation of Hall's right to a speedy trial. Hall was arrested for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver after a search of his backpack revealed the presence of Oxycodone pills packaged in baggies. A four-factor balancing test is used to evaluate the validity of a speedy trial claim: length of the delay, reason for the delay, proper assertion of the right, and actual prejudice to the accused. A sniff by a drug detection dog is not a Fourth Amendment search. A brief detention of luggage for purposes of conducting a dog sniff is a limited intrusion that requires only reasonable suspicion. Whether an officer had a reasonable and articulable suspicion is a fact-specific inquiry that is evaluated under an objective standard considering the totality of the circumstances. Whether probable cause exists to issue a search warrant is a question of law, and on appeal, the sufficiency of information before the magistrate is reviewed based on the totality of the circumstances. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded after review of the facts of this case that the district court did not err when it denied Hall's motion to dismiss for violation of Hall's speedy trial rights. The Court also concluded the district court did not err when it denied Hall's motion to suppress evidence. View "North Dakota v. Hall" on Justia Law

Section 39-20-01, N.D.C.C., requires law enforcement officers to convey the implied-consent advisory in an objectively reasonable way calculated to be comprehensible to the driver. Miguel Ayala appealed a judgment entered on his conditional plea of guilty to driving under the influence. He reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress his blood test result, arguing that law enforcement failed to "inform" him as required under the implied-consent law. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Ayala" on Justia Law

Karen Keller appealed after a district court entered a disorderly conduct restraining order against her. Karen is married to Chad Keller. Chad previously was married to Nichole Keller and had three children with Nichole. According to Nichole, she emailed Chad stating she would like to pick up the two youngest children. Chad responded that the children did not want to go. Nichole went to Chad’s house at the time Nichole said she wanted to pick up the children, accompanied by Rachel Parker. She was met at the edge of the home’s property line by Karen, who appeared with her hands behind her back, concealing a handgun. Nichole and Rachel Parker asked Karen why she was carrying the handgun and Karen responded she did not know the person Nichole was with and did not trust her. Nichole testified that Karen did not point the gun at her or make any threatening or violent statements, but that after that encounter, she was fearful for her life and the safety of her kids. Nichole petitioned for a disorderly conduct restraining order against Karen. Karen argued the district court abused its discretion in issuing the order because she did not make a threat of harm against Nichole and her actions were constitutionally protected. Nichole did not file a brief. The North Dakota Supreme Court found that Karen’s conduct on her property was constitutionally protected. The district court erred as a matter of law by not excluding the constitutionally protected activity. View "Keller v. Keller" on Justia Law

Garron Gonzalez appealed the district court's judgment on his application for post-conviction relief. In 2003, Gonzalez was charged with two counts of Gross Sexual Imposition and pled guilty to both counts in 2004. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and placed on probation. The district court revoked Gonzalez's probation in 2011 and resentenced him to an additional term of imprisonment. Gonzalez appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed. In August 2012, Gonzalez filed his first application for post-conviction relief, arguing there were procedural defects in his 2011 probation revocation hearing. The district court granted Gonzalez's application and a new hearing was held in 2014. In August 2013, Gonzalez filed his second application for post-conviction relief, arguing Rule 11, N.D.R.Crim.P., violations in his guilty plea of the original sentencing in 2004. The district court denied the application; Gonzalez appealed and was represented by counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed. The State started the process of revoking Gonzalez's probation again, after the district court granted Gonzalez's first application for post-conviction relief. In February 2014, Gonzalez filed a motion to suppress evidence at the probation revocation hearing; counsel was appointed to represent Gonzalez during the proceedings. The district court held a hearing on Gonzalez's suppression motion in May 2014, and subsequently denied his motion. The district court held a probation revocation hearing in June 2014 and revoked Gonzalez's probation. Gonzalez appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed. In September 2015, Gonzalez filed his third application for post-conviction relief, alleging his representation during his second post-conviction relief case was ineffective. The district court denied his application. Gonzalez appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed. Gonzalez filed this, his fourth application for post-conviction relief, in December 2015. Gonzalez argued his representation during his suppression hearing, probation revocation hearing, and direct appeal was ineffective. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Gonzalez v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Kabbah Morris appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 2014, Morris pleaded guilty to gross sexual imposition. Morris was sentenced to twenty years of incarceration with twelve years and six months suspended with supervised probation to follow. Morris claimed his attorney's representation was defective because of a failure to challenge statements he made to police in light of his difficulties in understanding English. Morris was a citizen of Liberia and spoke a different dialect of English. The Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in concluding Morris failed to establish his attorney's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court order denying Morris's application for post-conviction relief. View "Morris v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Jimmy Booth, Jr., appeals from a judgment denying his application for post-conviction relief based on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. Booth pled guilty to manufacturing a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and four counts of endangerment of a child. Booth, accompanied by his attorney, agreed with the factual basis presented for the plea. The district court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Booth to ten years of incarceration on each count to be served concurrently, with credit for time served. Booth timely moved for reduction of his sentence. The court denied the motion. Booth then moved to correct an illegal sentence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a)(1), arguing his sentence was illegal because the State gave him only a one-day notice of its intention to seek habitual offender sentence enhancement. After that was denied, Booth filed a pro se application for post-conviction relief under N.D.C.C. ch. 29-32.1, claiming he received ineffective assistance of counsel leading up to his guilty plea. Finding Booth failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the allegedly deficient performance of his counsel, the Supreme Court affirmed denial of post-conviction relief. View "Booth v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

In 2007 a jury found Tilmer Everett guilty of gross sexual imposition. In August 2015 the district court entered an order barring Everett from future filings without the court's permission. In February 2016, Everett filed what he referred to as a "motion requesting permission to file newly discovered evidence" and a supporting application for post-conviction relief. In March 2016, the district court entered an order denying his motion and dismissing his case. Everett appealed and the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, holding the district court's order denying Everett leave of court to allow him further filings was not an appealable order. In May 2016 Everett filed the motion underlying this case, which he referred to as a "motion requesting permission to file newly discovered evidence" with another application for post-conviction relief. In June 2016 the district court entered an order denying his motion to file newly discovered evidence and denying his application. On appeal Everett argues the district court violated his due process rights when it did not correctly file his motion and application and the State violated his due process rights by not responding to his motion and application. The Supreme Court reviewed the new application and found all of the alleged new allegations as meritless, and Everett previously brought these same matters before the Court in previous post-conviction applications. View "Everett v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

In 2007 a jury found Tilmer Everett guilty of gross sexual imposition. In August 2015 the district court entered an order barring Everett from future filings without the court's permission. In February 2016, Everett filed what he referred to as a "motion requesting permission to file newly discovered evidence" and a supporting application for post-conviction relief. In March 2016, the district court entered an order denying his motion and dismissing his case. Everett appealed and the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, holding the district court's order denying Everett leave of court to allow him further filings was not an appealable order. In May 2016 Everett filed the motion underlying this case, which he referred to as a "motion requesting permission to file newly discovered evidence" with another application for post-conviction relief. In June 2016 the district court entered an order denying his motion to file newly discovered evidence and denying his application. On appeal Everett argues the district court violated his due process rights when it did not correctly file his motion and application and the State violated his due process rights by not responding to his motion and application. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court dismissed Everett's appeal. View "Everett v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Erin Rourke appealed a district court's judgment after a jury convicted him of gross sexual imposition. Because Rourke failed to preserve his argument on sufficiency of the evidence for appeal by failing to move for a judgment of acquittal at trial under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Rourke" on Justia Law

The State charged David Gray with disorderly conduct for engaging in "harassing conduct by means of intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that are intended to adversely affect the safety, security, or privacy of another person." The Bergs informed the deputy they observed their neighbor, Gray, on numerous occasions trying to look into the Bergs' residence with binoculars, and they showed the deputy pictures of Gray standing on the property line watching their home. The Bergs informed the deputy they were afraid in their home based on Gray's actions. Ronda Berg informed the deputy that she has to "constantly keep her shades closed, and that she is afraid to go outside her own home." The deputy spoke to Gray about these issues. Gray became upset with the deputy and started yelling at him. Gray admitted to watching the Bergs' windows with binoculars claiming he did so because he was afraid that someone in the Bergs' home would try to shoot him. Gray told the deputy he needs "boots on the ground so they don't overrun my territory." The deputy told Gray that the issues with the Bergs needed to stop. Gray replied "[n]o, it's going to continue." Gray appealed after a jury found him guilty. Gray, self-represented, argued the district court erred by not ruling on his motions to dismiss; N.D.C.C. 12.1-31-01 should not apply because he was engaged in a constitutionally-protected activity; the complaint against him was "illegal;" N.D.C.C. 12.1-31-01 was unconstitutional for vagueness; there was insufficient evidence to uphold the jury verdict; and the district court erred in denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Gray" on Justia Law