Overlie v. State
804 N.W.2d 50
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Overlie pled guilty on September 14, 2009 to violating a domestic violence protection order, second or subsequent offense, under a binding plea agreement.
- District court sentenced Overlie to one year with all but thirteen days suspended for two years, plus supervised probation; probation was later revoked and he was re-sentenced to two years of incarceration.
- In June 2010, Overlie moved to reduce his sentence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(b), which the district court denied.
- On March 11, 2011, Overlie filed a pro se post-conviction relief application alleging new evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel, including the claim that the prosecution prevented his wife’s testimony and that counsel advised him to accept the plea.
- The State responded March 15, 2011, seeking a hearing and asking that the application be denied; on March 31, 2011, the court dismissed the application without an evidentiary hearing, citing no evidence that Overlie had requested his wife testify and no factual basis for ineffective assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in granting summary dismissal without an evidentiary hearing | Overlie contends genuine issues of material fact exist | State argues no entitlement to an evidentiary hearing because the record supports dismissal | The district court erred by dismissing without an evidentiary hearing |
| Whether the State's response functions as a proper motion for summary dismissal | State did not expressly move for summary dismissal and did not set the claim for relief | State's response framed as opposition but treated as dismissal was improper | State's response did not constitute a proper motion for summary dismissal |
| Whether Overlie was entitled to notice and opportunity to respond with evidence | Overlie should have been given 30 days to respond and present evidence | State did not violate procedural rights and arguments fail on merits | Overlie was entitled to notice and a 30-day responsive period; trial court failed to provide it |
Key Cases Cited
- Bender v. State, 576 N.W.2d 210 (ND 1998) (post-conviction development of record; evidentiary support unnecessary in initial application)
- Parizek v. State, 711 N.W.2d 178 (ND 2006) (State must demonstrate entitlement to judgment; mere opposition not enough)
- Wong v. State, 790 N.W.2d 757 (ND 2010) (treats sua sponte dismissals as summary judgments requiring notice and response)
- Berlin v. State, 698 N.W.2d 266 (ND 2005) (summary dismissal akin to failure to state a claim; requires genuine issue of material fact)
- State v. Wilson, 466 N.W.2d 101 (ND 1991) (post-conviction procedures permit development of evidence beyond trial record)
- Ude v. State, 764 N.W.2d 419 (ND 2009) (burden shifting for admissible evidence to raise genuine issues)
- Steinbach v. State, 658 N.W.2d 355 (ND 2003) (evidentiary support requirements for post-conviction claims)
- Henke v. State, 767 N.W.2d 881 (ND 2009) (discusses procedural posture for post-conviction relief)
- Sambursky v. State, 723 N.W.2d 524 (ND 2006) (standard for summary disposition in post-conviction proceedings)