Alerus Financial v. Marcil Group
2011 ND 205
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Wong pled guilty in August 2009 to gross sexual imposition and aggravated assault.
- Post-plea, Wong’s attorney moved for fitness and criminal responsibility evaluations; motions granted.
- A new attorney was assigned in October 2009; a doctor attempted an evaluation in November 2009, which Wong refused.
- Wong was sentenced December 15, 2009: life without parole for gross sexual imposition and five years for aggravated assault; no direct appeal.
- April 12, 2010 Wong filed a petition for post-conviction relief; district court dismissed; this Court reversed and remanded; hearing held March 16, 2011; petition denied after hearing.
- This appeal upheld the district court’s denial of post-conviction relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Wong competent to plead guilty? | Wong lacked capacity due to mental illness at plea. | Wong was capable to understand proceedings and assist in defense; no incompetence established. | No reversible error; Wong failed to prove incompetence at plea. |
| Did § 12.1-04-04 bar sentencing if Wong was incapacitated by mental disease? | Incapacity should have prevented sentencing under § 12.1-04-04. | No clear evidence of incapacity; argument raised on appeal inappropriate and not supported by record. | District court not in error; appellant failed to prove incapacity; argument not preserved. |
| Did Wong receive ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing? | Counsel failed to pursue the court-ordered evaluation, halted sentencing, or move to vacate. | No showing that counsel’s conduct fell below objective standard of reasonableness or that prejudice followed. | No deficient performance established; heavy burden not met. |
| Are new appellate arguments reviewable when raised for the first time on appeal? | Raised competency-related issues on appeal. | Such arguments generally not considered; record insufficient to support new theories. | Appellate permit rejected; arguments not considered due to lack of preserved record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wong v. State, 2010 ND 219, 790 N.W.2d 757 (ND 2010) (remand for further proceedings in post-conviction relief)
- Steen v. State, 690 N.W.2d 239 (ND 2004) (petitioner bears burden to establish basis for relief)
- Clark v. State, 758 N.W.2d 900 (ND 2008) (analysis of ineffective assistance of counsel; standard of review)
- Delvo v. State, 782 N.W.2d 72 (ND 2010) (post-conviction relief is civil; findings reviewed for clear error)
- Syvertson v. State, 699 N.W.2d 855 (ND 2005) (legal standards for post-conviction review; questions of law are reviewable)
- Berlin v. State, 604 N.W.2d 437 (ND 2000) (preservation and consideration of arguments raised on appeal)
- Odom v. State, 780 N.W.2d 666 (ND 2010) (prejudice requirement for ineffective assistance claims; heavy burden)
- Lange v. State, 522 N.W.2d 179 (ND 1994) (presumption of reasonable attorney conduct; standard of review)
- Patten v. State, 745 N.W.2d 626 (ND 2008) (objective standard of reasonableness for counsel)