Lyons v. State, 2 N.W.3d 679

George Robert Lyons was convicted of gross sexual imposition in 2017, which was affirmed on direct appeal and through a subsequent postconviction relief application.
In 2022, Lyons filed a second application for postconviction relief, over two years after his conviction became final, raising claims of newly discovered evidence and a statute of limitations issue.
Lyons alleged the victim's mother's statement—suggesting lack of evidence—was not available at trial and that his conviction was barred by a statute of limitations, claiming this was a jurisdictional issue.
The State moved for summary disposition, asserting the application was untimely and that the mother’s interview was known at trial.
The district court dismissed the application, finding it untimely and without merit for both the newly discovered evidence and statute of limitations arguments; Lyons appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Statute of Limitations	Jurisdictional; not subject to the 2-year postconviction deadline.	Timeliness required; no exception for jurisdictional claim.	Filing deadline applies; claim is untimely.
Newly Discovered Evidence	Victim’s mother’s statement was not available at trial.	Statement was part of trial discovery; no new evidence.	No competent evidence of newly discovered evidence.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel	Raised in notice of appeal, but not briefed.	N/A	Not addressed due to inadequate briefing.

State v. Lyons, 930 N.W.2d 156 (N.D. 2019) (affirming original conviction)
Lyons v. State, 959 N.W.2d 882 (N.D. 2021) (affirming prior denial of postconviction relief)
Burden v. State, 930 N.W.2d 619 (N.D. 2019) (civil rules apply to postconviction proceedings)
Hunter v. State, 949 N.W.2d 841 (N.D. 2020) (standard of review for postconviction rulings)
Kovalevich v. State, 915 N.W.2d 644 (N.D. 2018) (standard for newly discovered evidence claims)
Chatman v. State, 908 N.W.2d 724 (N.D. 2018) (petitioner must present competent evidence for hearing)
Burleigh Cnty. Soc. Serv. Bd. v. Rath, 985 N.W.2d 725 (N.D. 2023) (issues not briefed are not considered)