Middleton v. State
2014 ND 144
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Middleton was convicted by a jury of continuous sexual abuse of a child (Class AA felony) and corruption of a minor (Class C felony).
- Light, Middleton’s trial counsel, filed a new-trial motion after the verdict; Light later died.
- The district court denied the motion for new trial for lack of argument and factual support.
- Middleton later sought postconviction relief asserting ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding Light’s motion was procedurally deficient and not proven prejudicial under the Strickland standard.
- A dissent would presume prejudice due to the procedural default of the motion for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prejudice from deficient new-trial motion | Middleton argues Light’s deficient motion prejudiced appeal | State argues no showing of likely merit or prejudice | No reversible prejudice shown; no merit shown on prejudice |
| Relation between obvious-error standard and prejudice | Middleton contends district misapplied law by equating obvious-error with prejudice | State argues proper distinction between standards | Majority held for separate standards; no automatic prejudice finding under ineffective-assistance analysis |
| Presumption of prejudice for failure to perfect an appeal | Middleton relies on Heckelsmiller and Whiteman to presume prejudice | State argues no per se prejudice in this context | Presumption limited; prejudice must be shown under Strickland; not automatic here |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kraft, 413 N.W.2d 303 (N.D. 1987) (standard for granting a new trial in the interest of justice)
- Middleton, 2012 ND 181, 820 N.W.2d 738 (N.D. 2012) (direct appeal issues not raised by the new-trial motion were not reviewable per se)
- Heckelsmiller v. State, 687 N.W.2d 454 (N.D. 2004) (counsel’s failure to offer proof prevented meaningful appeal; prejudice can be shown)
- Whiteman v. State, 643 N.W.2d 704 (N.D. 2002) (presumption of prejudice for failure to pursue a direct appeal in limited circumstances)
- Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1985) (constitutional right to effective appellate counsel)
- State v. Erickson, 598 N.W.2d 787 (N.D. 1999) (obvious-error-like analysis for substantial rights)
- Lantzy, 736 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1999) (prejudice considerations in failure-to-appeal contexts)