Chase v. State
2017 ND 192
| N.D. | 2017Background
- In 2013 Chase was charged with gross sexual imposition (class AA felony) for a 2007 assault; a jury convicted him in 2014 and this Court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal.
- In Sept. 2016 Chase filed a post-conviction application alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel, supported by his sworn affidavit.
- The State responded with exhibits including an unsworn statement from Chase’s trial counsel and requested summary dismissal; no additional proceedings or notice of summary disposition to Chase are in the record.
- The district court denied the application without an evidentiary hearing, relying on facts outside the pleadings (including counsel’s statement) and found no deficient performance or prejudice.
- Chase appealed, arguing the court erred by summarily dismissing ineffective-assistance claims that raised disputed facts and should have held an evidentiary hearing.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, concluding genuine issues of material fact exist based on competing assertions between Chase and his trial counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court properly summarily dismissed post-conviction application | Chase: counsel performed deficiently (failed to file Rule 412 motion, challenge statute of limitations, investigate/disclose witnesses, develop testimony, and disclose conflict), raising factual disputes warranting a hearing | State: Chase offered no competent evidence of prejudice; allegations are fabrications and summary dismissal justified after its response | Reversed: summary dismissal was improper where court relied on matters outside pleadings; genuine issues of material fact exist and an evidentiary hearing is required |
| Whether court could treat dismissal as a Rule 12(b)-style dismissal based solely on the application | Chase: allegations and affidavit raise reasonable inferences against dismissal | State: Argued district court’s reliance on response evidence supported denial | Court treated action as summary judgment because it considered extrinsic evidence; thus summary‑judgment standards apply and hearing required when material facts disputed |
| Whether applicant bears burden to prove grounds for relief at preliminary stage | Chase: entitled to reasonable inferences and hearing if factual disputes exist | State: urged that Chase failed to meet burden with competent proof showing a different verdict would result | Court reiterated applicant burden but held where competing sworn/unswn assertions create genuine factual disputes, evidentiary hearing is appropriate |
| Whether district court gave adequate notice before resolving on summary disposition | Chase: no notice in record that court would resolve on summary disposition after State’s request | State: did not point to notice or further proof from Chase | Court noted lack of notice and reliance on outside evidence made dismissal improper; remanded for hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Greywind v. State, 869 N.W.2d 746 (N.D. 2015) (standards for summary dismissal of post-conviction applications and inferences for applicant)
- Chisholm v. State, 848 N.W.2d 703 (N.D. 2014) (district court may not rely on information outside application to deem it frivolous under § 29-32.1-09(1))
- Wong v. State, 790 N.W.2d 757 (N.D. 2010) (treating dismissal as summary judgment when court considers matters outside pleading)
- Abdi v. State, 608 N.W.2d 292 (N.D. 2000) (ineffective-assistance claims typically require evidentiary development)
- State v. Chase, 869 N.W.2d 733 (N.D. 2015) (Chase’s direct-appeal decision)