921 N.W.2d 677
N.D.2019Background
- In June 2017 Joshua Ourada pleaded guilty to terrorizing and preventing arrest/discharge of duties and was sentenced to three years.
- In January 2018 Ourada filed an application for post-conviction relief raising four issues: unlawful search, exigent circumstances, chain-of-custody challenge, and exaggerated charges.
- The State answered asserting the issues were waived by a voluntary guilty plea and requested summary disposition under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09(3).
- Twelve days after the State’s answer the district court summarily dismissed the application without any notice to Ourada or an opportunity for him to respond to the State’s effective motion.
- The district court treated the State’s answer as a motion for summary disposition, but did not comply with the court rules’ notice requirement for motions decided on briefs.
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding that summary dismissal after the State’s response required notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the application could be summarily dismissed after the State responded | Ourada argued he was entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond before summary dismissal | State argued nonjurisdictional defects are waived by a guilty plea and moved for summary disposition | Held: Summary dismissal after the State's response without notice violated due process; reversal and remand |
| Whether N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09(1) allowed dismissal after State response | Ourada relied on post-conviction protections and need for notice | State relied on statutory summary-disposition procedure | Held: § 29-32.1-09(1) permits dismissal only before the State responds; once the State responded, the court could not invoke that subsection |
| Whether the State’s answer functioned as a noticed motion under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 | Ourada contended he was not put on notice that the answer sought summary disposition | State treated its answer as a motion for summary disposition | Held: Rule 3.2 requires notice for motions; the State’s answer did not provide required notice, so dismissal was improper |
| Whether due process applies to post-conviction summary dismissal | Ourada argued due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard even in post-conviction cases | State argued summary procedures are permissible | Held: Due process requires notice and opportunity to respond before summary dismissal after the State’s filing; applicant must be informed that dismissal may follow |
Key Cases Cited
- Vandeberg v. State, 660 N.W.2d 568 (N.D. 2003) (post-conviction proceedings are civil and civil rules/statutes apply)
- First W. Bank of Minot v. Wickman, 464 N.W.2d 195 (N.D. 1990) (motion must be noticed under the court rule even if decided on briefs)
- Chisholm v. State, 848 N.W.2d 703 (N.D. 2014) (applicant entitled to notice that application may be summarily dismissed and opportunity to file an answer brief)