Curtiss v. State, 2016 ND 62

Spencer K. Curtiss was convicted by a jury of gross sexual imposition after a December 2010 trial; this Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal.
Curtiss filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) application in 2012 asserting ineffective assistance of counsel (unable to hear trial due to hearing impairment; counsel failed to move to suppress evidence; counsel failed to call alibi witnesses).
A PCR hearing was held in May 2014; Curtiss and his trial attorney testified; no criminal trial transcript was filed in the PCR docket.
The district court denied PCR in December 2014, finding Curtiss failed to prove ineffective assistance or that he could not hear the trial.
Curtiss sought relief from that denial arguing the court should have considered the criminal trial transcript (which existed in the criminal file but was not filed in the PCR file); the court denied relief and later denied Curtiss’s motion for reconsideration.
Curtiss appealed the denials; he argued the court erred by not considering the transcript and by ruling before his reply time expired; the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding no abuse of discretion and any timing error was harmless.

Issue	Curtiss' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by not considering the criminal trial transcript in the PCR ruling	Court had the transcript in the criminal file and should have relied on it	PCR applicant bears burden; transcript must be filed in PCR proceedings; court may decide based on hearing testimony and briefs	No error; district court not required to review trial transcript that was not filed in the PCR record; no abuse of discretion
Whether the court erred by ruling before Curtiss had the full reply period to respond to the State’s answer	Ruling occurred before seven-day reply period expired, depriving him of opportunity to respond	Court’s premature ruling was error but harmless because Curtiss’ later reply added nothing that would change outcome	Trial court erred on timing but error was harmless under Rule 61; denial affirmed

Kinsella v. State, 840 N.W.2d 625 (establishing PCR proceedings are civil and governed by civil rules)
Chisholm v. State, 871 N.W.2d 595 (petitioner bears burden to show grounds for PCR)
Dominguez v. State, 840 N.W.2d 596 (questions of law in PCR are fully reviewable)
Keller v. State, 869 N.W.2d 424 (standard for reviewing PCR decisions)
Sambursky v. State, 751 N.W.2d 247 (clarifying clearly erroneous factual-review standard)
Owens v. State, 578 N.W.2d 542 (transcript access for indigent applicants limited to cases showing necessity)
Greywind v. State, 869 N.W.2d 746 (motions for reconsideration treated under Rules 59(j) or 60(b))
Riak v. State, 863 N.W.2d 894 (grounds for Rule 60(b) relief)
State v. Acker, 871 N.W.2d 603 (harmless-error explanation)