Friesz v. State, 956 N.W.2d 338

In Feb 2016 Rodney Friesz was convicted of manslaughter and arson after being charged with murder and arson; this Court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal. (State v. Friesz, 2017 ND 177, 898 N.W.2d 688)
Friesz filed a first post-conviction relief (PCR) application in May 2018 raising multiple constitutional and counsel-based claims; the district court denied and this Court summarily affirmed. (Friesz v. State, 2020 ND 2, 937 N.W.2d 285)
On May 1, 2020 Friesz filed a second PCR application alleging ineffective assistance, Fourth Amendment violations, Brady/DNA nondisclosure, insufficiency of evidence, and related claims.
The State moved for summary dismissal on June 1, 2020, asserting the application was time-barred under the two-year statute and res judicata; the State also filed an answer the same day.
The district court dismissed the application on June 3, 2020—two days after the State’s filing and before Friesz had an opportunity to respond under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(2).
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the court erred by ruling before the 14-day response period elapsed; the error was not treated as harmless and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Friesz)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the district court prematurely dismissed the PCR before Friesz could respond	Court violated N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(2); Friesz entitled to 14 days to answer the State’s motion	Court may summarily deny meritless applications; dismissal was proper because application was untimely and meritless	Reversed—district court erred by ruling before the 14-day response period expired; applicant must be given opportunity to respond
Whether N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09(1) allows a court to summarily dismiss a second/successive PCR without waiting for applicant’s response	Rule 3.2 governs response time regardless of whether application is first or successive	Statute’s separate clause for second applications lacks the phrase "before any response by the state," suggesting broader judicial authority to dismiss	Rejected State’s reading; Court declines to modify precedent and applies Rule 3.2(a)(2) to subsequent applications as well
Whether the premature dismissal was harmless given the statute-of-limitations defense	Friesz argued his claims (e.g., alleged undisclosed DNA) might invoke exceptions or require discovery; response could show claims not futile	State argued the petition was plainly time-barred and res judicata applied, so any response would be futile	Error not considered harmless here; reversal required because record did not make any possible response clearly futile

State v. Friesz, 2017 ND 177, 898 N.W.2d 688 (affirming conviction and remanding to correct clerical error)
Friesz v. State, 2020 ND 2, 937 N.W.2d 285 (summary affirmance of denial of first PCR application)
Atkins v. State, 2019 ND 146, 928 N.W.2d 438 (applying N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 response-time requirement to summary-dismissal motions)
State v. Acker, 2015 ND 278, 871 N.W.2d 603 (defining harmless error standard)