Horvath v. State, 905 N.W.2d 734

Jonathan Horvath was convicted by a jury (July 2014) of murder, reckless endangerment, two counts of terrorizing, and felon in possession of a firearm; he is serving life without parole.
This Court previously affirmed Horvath’s convictions on direct appeal. See State v. Horvath, 2015 ND 166, 870 N.W.2d 26.
Horvath filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) application (June 2016), later amended, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
Two central PCR allegations: (1) trial counsel failed to subpoena a witness (Kevin Kallio); (2) trial counsel failed to present the full surveillance video (trial exhibit 24), which Horvath contended would impeach key State witness Brittney Montee and show a third person in the vehicle.
The State moved for summary dismissal and put Horvath to his proof; the district court summarily dismissed the amended application without an evidentiary hearing.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding Horvath’s specific references to the video and transcript raised a genuine issue of material fact entitling him to an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Horvath)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the district court erred by summarily dismissing PCR alleging ineffective assistance	Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to admit full exhibit 24 which would impeach State witness Montee and show a third person, and for not subpoenaing Kallio; thus prejudice resulted	State argued no genuine issue of material fact and put Horvath to his proof; dismissal appropriate because Horvath offered no competent evidence supporting claims	Reversed: Horvath’s specific references to the video and trial transcript created reasonable inferences and a genuine factual dispute; an evidentiary hearing is required
Whether applicant met the minimal evidentiary burden after being put to proof	Horvath provided specific references to exhibit 24 and transcript pages showing witness testimony that could be contradicted by the excluded video portion	State maintained Horvath’s petition relied on pleadings and allegations insufficient to survive summary disposition	Held that the references to the video and transcript constituted competent admissible evidence sufficient to require a hearing

State v. Horvath, 870 N.W.2d 26 (N.D. 2015) (direct-appeal decision affirming convictions)
Chisholm v. State, 848 N.W.2d 703 (N.D. 2014) (purpose of PCR Act is to develop a complete record to challenge a conviction)
Chase v. State, 899 N.W.2d 280 (N.D. 2017) (summary disposition in PCR is akin to summary judgment when matters outside pleadings are considered)
Vandeberg v. State, 660 N.W.2d 568 (N.D. 2003) (explains putting a petitioner to proof and when State is entitled to judgment as a matter of law)