Hamilton v. State, 2017 ND 54

Background

Adam Hamilton pleaded guilty to continuous sexual abuse of a child and was sentenced to 30 years; his conviction was summarily affirmed on direct appeal.
Hamilton sought post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, Rule 11 violations, and failure to object to an allegedly coerced confession; the district court granted an evidentiary hearing.
Hamilton requested a transport order to attend in person; the court denied transport but allowed him to testify by telephone for up to 30 minutes under DOC telephonic procedures.
At the hearing Hamilton objected that the court’s remote procedure prevented confidential attorney-client conference and electronic transmission of documents in violation of N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 52, § 2(D)–(E).
The district court misapplied an older version of Rule 52 and concluded the confidentiality/transmission requirements did not apply; this Court held the amended rule did apply but found the error harmless because the court kept the record open and accepted the exhibit after the hearing.
Hamilton also argued the denial of a transport order violated his right to be personally present; the Court held he waived that objection (by requesting the DOC-limited telephonic procedure) and, in any event, he failed to show prejudice or a recognized right to mandatory in-person attendance.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 52’s requirements for confidential attorney-client communication and electronic document transmission apply to proceedings using reliable electronic means	Hamilton: Rule 52 §2(D),(E) required confidential communication and document transmission during his remote testimony	State: The proceeding was not an interactive television hearing, so the cited subparts do not apply	Court: Amended Rule 52 applies at any site using reliable electronic means; district court misapplied an obsolete version, but error was harmless
Whether denial of a transport order violated Hamilton’s right to be personally present	Hamilton: He had a right to attend in person and consult with counsel, so transport should be ordered	State: No authority requiring personal appearance; remote testimony is permissible	Court: Hamilton waived objection by requesting DOC-compliant remote participation and failed to establish a right to mandatory personal attendance or prejudice
Whether inability to privately confer or transmit documents prejudiced Hamilton’s post-conviction claim	Hamilton: Lack of confidential communication prevented meaningful assistance of counsel and may have impaired development of ineffective-assistance evidence	State: Court procedures and post-hearing filings remedied any prejudice	Court: Any procedural error was harmless because the court left the record open and allowed filing of the exhibit after the hearing
Whether the statutory/constitutional right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings required in-person presence	Hamilton: For ineffective-assistance claims, presence (in-person or reliable electronic means) is important to develop the record	State: Right to counsel satisfied by representation and telephone testimony	Held: No absolute right to in-person attendance; presence via reliable electronic means can satisfy the right; here court’s process did not show reversible prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Patterson v. State, 886 N.W.2d 684 (N.D. 2016) (standard for reviewing post-conviction factual findings)
Myers v. State, 760 N.W.2d 362 (N.D. 2009) (ineffective-assistance claims ordinarily require evidentiary hearing)
Abdi v. State, 608 N.W.2d 292 (N.D. 2000) (post-conviction claims generally unsuited for summary disposition)
Curtiss v. Curtiss, 886 N.W.2d 565 (N.D. 2016) (telephone appearance can satisfy right to appear)
Walbert v. Walbert, 567 N.W.2d 829 (N.D. 1997) (prisoners generally do not have right to in-person appearance in civil matters)
State v. Acker, 871 N.W.2d 603 (N.D. 2015) (definition of harmless error)
Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (U.S. 1987) (states are not required to provide post-conviction relief but may do so and set procedures)