Friesz v. State, 969 N.W.2d 465

Rodney Friesz was convicted by jury of manslaughter and arson in 2016; his direct appeal was affirmed in State v. Friesz.
He filed a first post-conviction application (2018) which was denied and that denial was affirmed in 2020.
In May 2020 Friesz filed a second post-conviction application asserting, among other claims, newly discovered DNA evidence showing another person committed the crimes.
The State moved for summary dismissal as untimely (filed more than two years after conviction became final) and for lack of competent evidence showing undisclosed DNA or that DNA would negate guilt.
After this Court remanded to allow a response, Friesz relied on a hearsay report from a corrections officer that Morton County possessed undisclosed DNA; the district court found the claim unsupported, untimely, and that DNA would not necessarily overcome the confession and other evidence.
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the summary dismissal, holding Friesz failed to meet his minimal evidentiary burden and that remaining claims were barred or previously available.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness / newly discovered-evidence exception	Friesz: newly discovered DNA fits N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(3) and excuses the two-year limit	State: petition filed after two-year limit; exception not established	Dismissed — untimely; exception not shown
Adequacy of evidence claiming undisclosed DNA	Friesz: corrections officer told him Morton County had undisclosed DNA evidence	State: no competent affidavit, hearsay, factual inaccuracies; impossible custody assertion	Hearsay insufficient; petitioner failed minimal burden
Whether DNA would establish innocence	Friesz: DNA would show another individual committed the crimes	State: even if DNA exists, it would not negate confession and other trial evidence	Court: cannot conclude DNA would establish noninvolvement or likely acquittal
Other claims (IAC, Fourth Amendment, disclosure)	Friesz: raised ineffective assistance, suppression, and disclosure claims in second petition	State: those claims were or could have been raised earlier and are barred	Court: other claims barred or precluded; not grounds to avoid dismissal

State v. Friesz, 898 N.W.2d 688 (2017) (direct-appeal affirmance of convictions)
Friesz v. State, 937 N.W.2d 285 (2020) (prior post-conviction denial affirmed)
Morales v. State, 943 N.W.2d 761 (2020) (minimal burden on petitioner to oppose State's summary-dismissal motion)
Overlie v. State, 804 N.W.2d 50 (2011) (summary-dismissal procedure and petitioner burden)
Wacht v. State, 864 N.W.2d 740 (2015) (newly discovered-evidence standard analogous to Rule 33 new-trial test)
Syvertson v. State, 699 N.W.2d 855 (2005) (elements for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
Davis v. State, 827 N.W.2d 8 (2013) (entitlement to hearing if reasonable inference raises genuine factual issue)
Kovalevich v. State, 932 N.W.2d 354 (2019) (standard of review for summary denial of post-conviction relief)