Pinkney v. State, 963 N.W.2d 737

In 2015 Pinkney pleaded guilty to gross sexual imposition (Class A felony) and was sentenced; he previously filed and lost multiple post-conviction and related motions.
In April 2020 he filed a post-conviction application asserting newly discovered DNA evidence, actual innocence, and incompetence to plead, and sought to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial.
The State moved for summary dismissal; Pinkney’s appointed counsel said an investigation was ongoing and that a retained psychologist and private investigator were working the case.
Pinkney moved in July 2020 for a continuance because the psychologist could not interview him due to DOCR pandemic policies and needed more time to complete an evaluation.
The district court denied the continuance and granted the State’s motion for summary dismissal, finding Pinkney had produced only conclusory allegations, no competent evidence, and was still investigating potential claims.
Pinkney appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed, holding the continuance denial was not an abuse of discretion and that summary dismissal was proper because Pinkney failed to meet the minimal burden to raise a genuine issue of material fact.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of continuance	Needed more time because psychologist could not interview him under DOCR pandemic policy	Motion untimely, no good cause, prior extension already granted, investigation still ongoing	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed
Summary dismissal of post-conviction application	Alleged exceptions to the 2-year limitations (newly discovered evidence; mental disease) and asserted ongoing investigation justified inference of viable claims	State shifted burden and argued Pinkney was barred by statute and other defenses; he failed to submit any competent evidence after being put to proof	Summary dismissal affirmed — Pinkney failed to produce minimal competent evidence; post-conviction is not for investigating possible claims

Everett v. State, 757 N.W.2d 530 (2008 ND 199) (continuance decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Hilgers, 685 N.W.2d 109 (2004 ND 160) (good-cause requirement for continuances)
Myers v. State, 891 N.W.2d 724 (2017 ND 66) (post-conviction governed by civil rules; summary dismissal standard)
Parizek v. State, 711 N.W.2d 178 (2006 ND 61) (movant may shift minimal burden to nonmovant to produce competent evidence)
Davis v. State, 827 N.W.2d 8 (2013 ND 34) (post-conviction not a vehicle to investigate possible claims)
Wacht v. State, 864 N.W.2d 740 (2015 ND 154) (post-conviction civil nature and procedural context)