2019 ND 10
N.D.2019Background
- In June 2017 Joshua Ourada pleaded guilty to terrorizing and preventing arrest and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
- In January 2018 Ourada filed an application for post-conviction relief raising four claims: unlawful search, exigent circumstances, chain-of-custody challenge, and exaggerated charges.
- The State answered, arguing all nonjurisdictional defects are 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 post-conviction application without giving Ourada notice that the State’s answer was treated as a motion for summary disposition and without an opportunity for Ourada to respond.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether summary dismissal after the State’s response, without proper notice, complied with procedural rules and due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nonjurisdictional claims are waived by a voluntary guilty plea | Ourada contended his listed pre-plea defects could be reviewed in post-conviction proceedings | State argued nonjurisdictional defects occurring before a voluntary guilty plea are waived | Court did not reach merits; focused on procedural defects in dismissal, not substantive waiver determination |
| Whether the court could summarily dismiss under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09(1) after the State answered | Ourada argued dismissal after the State’s answer was improper without notice | State relied on § 29-32.1-09(3) for summary disposition after its answer | Court held § 29-32.1-09(1) only authorizes dismissal before any state response; after response § 29-32.1-09(3) governs and requires proper procedure |
| Whether the State’s answer functioned as a noticed motion for summary disposition | Ourada argued he was not on notice the answer sought summary dismissal | State treated its answer as a motion for summary disposition and relied on the record to show no genuine issue of material fact | Court held the answer did not provide the notice required for a motion under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 and due process; notice was required and was not given |
| Whether summary dismissal without notice violated due process in post-conviction proceedings | Ourada asserted he was entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard before dismissal | State argued summary disposition was proper based on the pleadings and record | Court held due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard; summary dismissal after the State’s response without proper notice was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Vandeberg v. State, 660 N.W.2d 568 (N.D. 2003) (post-conviction proceedings are civil in nature and civil rules/statutes apply)
- First W. Bank of Minot v. Wickman, 464 N.W.2d 195 (N.D. 1990) (a motion must be noticed under the rules even if decided on briefs)
- Chisholm v. State, 848 N.W.2d 703 (N.D. 2014) (applicant entitled to notice that post-conviction application may be summarily dismissed and opportunity to respond)