Haag v. State
823 N.W.2d 749
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Haag pled guilty to possession of JWH-018 with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia for use of JWH-018 for acts on November 12, 2010.
- Haag challenged post-conviction relief alleging JWH-018 was not a prohibited substance at the time of his acts.
- The State argued a final Board rule designating JWH-018 as prohibited was in effect by October 2010.
- The district court denied relief, relying on Nickel to distinguish emergency interim final rules from final rules.
- Nickel held the emergency interim final rule was invalid, but Haag’s conduct fell after a final rule became effective by October 2010.
- The court ultimately held the district court did not err in denying post-conviction relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was JWH-018 a prohibited substance on Nov. 12, 2010? | Haag: conduct uncaptured by a valid final rule. | State: final rule existed by Oct. 2010 and applied. | Yes, final rule in effect by Oct. 2010. |
| Does Nickel control whether the final rule invalidates Haag’s convictions? | Nickel invalidated emergency interim rule, affecting convictions. | Nickel not controlling; final rule valid. | Nickel does not control; final rule valid and applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nickel, 2011 ND 200 (N.D. 2011) (emergency rule invalid for notice; final rule effective by Oct. 2010)
- Wong v. State, 2011 ND 201 (N.D. 2011) (post-conviction relief proceedings are civil; questions of law reviewed de novo)
- Syvertson v. State, 2005 ND 128 (N.D. 2005) (clarity on post-conviction standard of review)
- Delvo v. State, 2010 ND 78 (N.D. 2010) (procedural posture for post-conviction relief; civil procedure rules)
- Henke v. State, 2009 ND 117 (N.D. 2009) (standard for summary disposition in post-conviction relief)
- Vandeberg v. State, 2008 ND 71 (N.D. 2008) (summary-disposition standard in post-conviction review)