Lehman v. State
2014 ND 103
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Lehman convicted in 2009 of kidnapping and terrorizing; sentences to run concurrently (10 years, 5 years).
- This Court affirmed Lehman’s conviction in 2010 (State v. Lehman, 2010 ND 134).
- Lehman pursued post-conviction relief; district court denied; this Court affirmed dismissal in 2011 (Lehman v. State, 2011 ND 225).
- Effective Aug. 1, 2013, amendments created a two-year statute of limitations for post-conviction relief and restricted second/related petitions (N.D.C.C. §§ 29-32.1-01(2), -01(3), -09).
- Lehman filed a second post-conviction relief application on Aug. 2, 2013, raising ineffective assistance claims against first post-conviction counsel.
- District court summarily dismissed Lehman’s second application under newly enacted §29-32.1-09(1)-(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2013 amendments apply retroactively to Lehman’s second petition | Lehman contends amendments cannot retroactively apply to preexisting proceedings | State argues amendments apply to applications filed after enactment, including Lehman’s | Amendments apply to Lehman’s post-conviction petition filed after enactment |
| Whether the district court properly denied under §29-32.1-09(1)-(2) | Lehman argues his new claim is different and merits consideration | Court may deny meritless grounds and second/related relief or claims previously decided | District court could deny under §29-32.1-09(1)-(2) without hearing |
| Whether Martinez v. Ryan creates a basis to excuse procedural default in Dakota post-conviction context | Martinez allows cause for procedural default when initial-review counsel is ineffective | Martinez is distinguishable and not controlling here | Martinez does not excuse Lehman here; not applicable to ND post-conviction context |
| Whether the State’s failure to plead the statute of limitations waives it | Lehman notes limitations may bar second petition | Waived because affirmative defense not pleaded by State | Statute of limitations defense waived; court proceeded on §29-32.1-09 grounds |
| Whether the amendments are retroactive or prospective | Amendments should not affect pre-enactment petitions | Statutes apply to actions commenced after enactment; no retroactivity intended | Amendments apply prospectively to Lehman’s post-conviction filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinsella v. State, 2013 ND 238 (ND 2013) (post-conviction proceedings governed by ND Civ. P.)
- Waslaski v. State, 2013 ND 56 (ND 2013) (summary denial standards; establish burden of genuine issues)
- Parizek v. State, 2006 ND 61 (ND 2006) (reasonable inferences at preliminary stages; need hearing if genuine issue)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (S. Ct. 2012) (narrow exception to Coleman for ineffective assistance at initial collateral)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1981) (no constitutional right to counsel in state post-conviction proceedings)
- Glaspie v. Little, 1997 ND 108 (ND 1997) (retroactivity analysis in ND for amended statutes)
- Haverluk v. State, 432 N.W.2d 871 (ND 1988) (retroactivity of enhanced penalties in subsequent offense)
- Murphy v. State, 2014 ND 84 (ND 2014) (limitations defense; finality principles)
- Lehman v. State, 2011 ND 225 (ND 2011) (affirmed district court’s dismissal of first post-conviction relief)
- State v. Lehman, 2010 ND 134 (ND 2010) (affirmation of conviction)