Atkins v. State
2017 ND 290
| N.D. | 2017Background
- In 2015 Cody Michael Atkins pled guilty to gross sexual imposition and was sentenced to 20 years (5 suspended), with 10 years supervised probation; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
- Atkins filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition in March 2016 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; initial petition dismissed for failure to timely file a brief.
- Atkins refiled an identical PCR petition in September 2016 and, after an extension, filed a supplemental brief in March 2017 asserting six ineffective-assistance grounds and requesting an evidentiary hearing.
- The State moved for summary dismissal in April 2017; the court scheduled an evidentiary hearing but Atkins did not respond to the State’s motion or submit affidavits or other competent evidence supporting his allegations.
- The district court granted the State’s motion for summary dismissal in May 2017; Atkins appealed the summary denial of post-conviction relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Atkins was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective assistance claims | Atkins argued scheduling a hearing relieved him of producing competent evidence before the hearing | State argued Atkins was put to his proof by the motion for summary dismissal and failed to present competent, admissible evidence | Court held Atkins was not entitled to a hearing because he failed to produce competent evidence after the State moved for summary disposition |
| Whether summary dismissal was appropriate despite the district court not stating findings | Atkins implied the court should have articulated reasons or allowed the hearing | State argued Rule 52(a)(3) does not require findings on Rule 56 motions and dismissal was proper when petitioner failed to meet burden | Court held lack of articulated findings did not bar summary dismissal; findings not required for such motions |
| Whether Atkins met his burden to support ineffective assistance claims at summary stage | Atkins relied on conclusory assertions in his brief (e.g., coerced confession, alibi, poor counsel performance) | State pointed to absence of affidavits or other admissible evidence to raise a material factual issue | Court held Atkins failed to meet the minimal burden of providing competent evidence and therefore summary dismissal was proper |
| Whether scheduling an evidentiary hearing shifts burden to State to disprove Atkins’ allegations | Atkins argued the State’s failure to refute his factual assertions relieved him of producing evidence | State maintained the burden remains with Atkins once State moves for summary disposition | Court held scheduling a hearing does not relieve petitioner of producing competent evidence once put to proof by the State |
Key Cases Cited
- Parizek v. State, 711 N.W.2d 178 (N.D. 2006) (summary denial reviewed like summary judgment; petitioner entitled to evidentiary hearing if competent evidence raises genuine issue)
- Steinbach v. State, 658 N.W.2d 355 (N.D. 2003) (once State moves for summary disposition, minimal burden shifts to petitioner to provide competent evidence; absence of such evidence justifies summary denial)
- Ude v. State, 764 N.W.2d 419 (N.D. 2009) (affirming summary dismissal where petitioner was put to proof and failed to present competent evidence)
- Chase v. State, 899 N.W.2d 280 (N.D. 2017) (applicant bears burden to establish grounds for post-conviction relief)
- State v. Atkins, 873 N.W.2d 676 (N.D. 2016) (direct appeal affirming Atkins’ conviction)