Burden v. State, 930 N.W.2d 619

Background

In March 2017 Burden pled guilty to contributing to the deprivation of a minor and admitted a separate petition to revoke probation for a 2013 simple-assault conviction; the court sentenced him and denied reconsideration and a plea-withdrawal motion.
In November 2017 Burden, pro se, filed an application for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel related to the plea and the probation revocation; the State answered denying the allegations and asserted misuse of process and sought summary disposition as to an interest-of-justice claim.
Burden obtained counsel and filed an amended application repeating ineffective-assistance claims and requesting a hearing; the State filed an amended answer denying allegations and generally ‘‘put[ting] [Burden] to his proof.’'
On July 5, 2018 the State moved for summary dismissal; the district court granted summary dismissal on July 23, 2018 without an evidentiary hearing, noting Burden had not responded and lacked competent admissible evidence.
Burden moved for relief under Rule 60(b) with an affidavit describing facts supporting his claims; the district court denied relief, concluding Burden had been put to his proof earlier and failed to respond within the applicable time period.
The Supreme Court reversed: it held the district court applied the wrong standard in treating the dismissal as a pleadings-only dismissal and also concluded Burden was not given the 30 days required to respond to a summary-judgment-style motion; the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Burden's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal was proper as a failure-to-state-a-claim (pleadings-only)	Burden argued his amended application, construed in his favor, stated ineffective-assistance claims that could not be dismissed on the pleadings	State argued its answers put Burden to his proof and the pleadings supported dismissal	Court held dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was improper; Burden’s allegations, viewed favorably, could state a claim
Whether the State put Burden to his proof and the timing for response	Burden argued he was not put to his proof until the State’s July 5, 2018 motion and thus was entitled to the Rule 56 response period	State argued its general denials and ‘‘puts you to your proof’’ language in its answers sufficed to put Burden to his proof earlier	Court held the State’s general answers did not put Burden to his proof; the July 5 motion did, triggering the summary-judgment response period
Whether the district court should have given 30 days to respond to a summary-judgment-style motion	Burden argued he was entitled to the 30-day response period under Rule 56 because the State’s motion relied on matters beyond the pleadings	State argued the court correctly treated the motion as a pleadings-only dismissal and applied shorter timelines	Court held that once the motion required consideration beyond the pleadings it must be treated under Rule 56 and Burden was not given the required 30 days to respond
Whether the denial of Rule 60(b) relief was an abuse of discretion	Burden argued the Rule 60(b) motion and affidavit showed excusable grounds and the original dismissal was improper	State argued Burden failed to provide competent admissible evidence in time	Court held denial of Rule 60(b) relief was an abuse of discretion because the underlying summary dismissal was improper

Key Cases Cited

Johnson v. State, 705 N.W.2d 830 (explaining distinction between pleadings-only dismissal and Rule 56 summary disposition and timing for responses)
Greywind v. State, 869 N.W.2d 746 (clarifying standards for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal vs. summary judgment in post-conviction proceedings)
Mackey v. State, 819 N.W.2d 539 (describing when petitioner is "put on his proof" and burden to produce competent admissible evidence)
Parizek v. State, 711 N.W.2d 178 (state must affirmatively show entitlement to judgment to put petitioner on proof)
Wong v. State, 790 N.W.2d 757 (Rule 12(b)(6) standards — construing pleadings in favor of applicant)