882 N.W.2d 724
N.D.2016Background
- In 2005 David Hieb pled guilty to conspiracy to commit murder after amended information dismissed a murder charge.
- Hieb did not appeal; his conviction became final in 2005.
- On October 7, 2015, Hieb filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) application arguing his guilty plea was to a non-cognizable offense because this Court’s decision in State v. Borner held conspiracy to commit extreme-indifference murder is not a cognizable offense.
- Hieb asserted the Borner decision announced a new interpretation of state law that should be applied retroactively, invoking the statutory exception to the two-year PCR statute of limitations.
- The State moved to deny relief as time-barred and argued Hieb’s voluntary guilty plea waived non-jurisdictional defects.
- The district court denied relief as untimely and found the guilty plea knowing and voluntary; the Supreme Court affirmed on statute-of-limitations grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hieb) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hieb’s PCR is timely under the two-year statute of limitations when invoking a new-state-law exception | Borner announced a new interpretation that applies retroactively; Hieb filed within two years of that retroactive application | Hieb’s PCR was filed more than two years after Borner; statute bars relief | PCR untimely; court affirms denial |
| What is the effective date for triggering the two-year filing period for a new-state-law exception | The effective date should allow retroactive application to Hieb’s conviction | The effective date is when the opinion announcing the new rule is published/distributed (or mandate later) | Effective date is the opinion’s distribution/publication date |
| Whether conspiracy to commit felony (extreme-indifference) murder is a cognizable offense (as applied to Hieb) | Because Borner held such conspiracy is not cognizable, Hieb’s guilty plea was to no crime | Even accepting Borner, Hieb’s PCR is untimely; alternatively plea was knowing and voluntary | Court did not reach merits due to untimeliness; concurrence notes plea’s factual basis supports result |
| Whether Hieb’s guilty plea waived non-jurisdictional defects | N/A (Hieb contends offense not cognizable, implying no waiver) | A voluntary, knowing guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional challenges | Court found plea knowing and voluntary; waiver supports denial if merits reached |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Borner, 836 N.W.2d 383 (N.D. 2013) (held conspiracy to commit extreme-indifference murder is not a cognizable offense)
- In re Disciplinary Action Against Larson, 485 N.W.2d 345 (N.D. 1992) (discusses mandate and its effect on parties)
- Datz v. Dosch, 846 N.W.2d 724 (N.D. 2014) (addresses issuance and effect of appellate mandate)
- State v. Rufus, 868 N.W.2d 534 (N.D. 2015) (federal decisions may guide interpretation of state post-conviction statute)