Murphy v. State
2014 ND 84
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Murphy pled guilty to fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer on October 12, 2005, a class A misdemeanor under NDCC 39-10-71, and was sentenced to one year in county jail with all but two days suspended.
- He did not appeal the judgment initially.
- Murphy moved to withdraw his guilty plea in 2006, seeking an Alford plea; the district court denied the motions to withdraw in October 2006 and April 2007, which Murphy did not appeal.
- Murphy previously sought postconviction relief, which the court summarily affirmed in 2008.
- Murphy petitioned for postconviction relief again on September 19, 2013, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The district court summarily dismissed the 2013 petition as untimely under N.D.C.C. 29-32.1-01(2), effective August 1, 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Murphy's postconviction relief filing timely? | Murphy argues relief should be considered despite timing. | State asserts filing was untimely under two-year window after finality. | Untimely; not saved by any exception. |
| Do any statutory exceptions apply to extend the filing deadline? | New evidence or retroactive law arguments could apply. | No newly discovered evidence, disability, or retroactive interpretation shown. | No exceptions established; dismissal upheld. |
| Should the court address Murphy's ineffective assistance or guilty-plea grounds given untimeliness? | Ineffective assistance and plea issues merit consideration. | Timeliness bars addressing merits. | Court declines to address merits due to untimeliness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parizek v. State, 711 N.W.2d 178 (2006 ND 61) (standard for summary disposition in postconviction relief)
- Murphy v. State, 756 N.W.2d 344 (2008 ND 124) (affirmed summary dismissal of postconviction relief)