Sanders v. Gravel Products, Inc.
2010 ND 218
| N.D. | 2010Background
- Johnson was convicted in 2008 on two counts of contact by bodily fluids in a bifurcated trial, with a criminal act phase and a criminal responsibility phase.
- He sought post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and trial-counsel interference with testimony; the district court denied, and this Court summarily affirmed.
- Johnson then wrote a letter to the district court requesting an evidentiary hearing; the district court treated it as a second post-conviction relief application and denied as res judicata.
- Johnson later filed a third post-conviction relief application asserting insufficient evidence of criminal responsibility and ineffective assistance by direct-appeal and first-application counsel, among other claims.
- The district court summarily dismissed the third application on its own motion as res judicata and misuse of process, relying on a prior per curiam ND Supreme Court decision that did not outline Johnson’s specific claims.
- This Court reverses and remands for further proceedings, including an opportunity for the State to respond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court could dismiss the post-conviction relief application on res judicata on its own motion | Johnson argues res judicata cannot be raised or applied sua sponte by the court. | State contends res judicata was appropriate based on prior adjudications. | District court cannot sua sponte dismiss on res judicata; must be pleaded by State and allow response. |
| Whether res judicata and misuse of process bar Johnson’s claims given the prior ND Supreme Court decision | Johnson maintains prior decision does not bar new claims or ineffective-assistance issues. | State asserts prior ruling precludes the new arguments. | Erroneous to summarily rely on res judicata without State’s opportunity to respond; remand required. |
| Whether Johnson was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on insufficiency of the evidence and ineffective assistance claims | Johnson seeks an evidentiary hearing to develop material facts. | State argues claims lack genuine issues of material fact. | District court erred by not providing an evidentiary hearing; remand for merits development. |
| Whether direct-appeal counsel could be ineffective for failing to raise sufficiency of the evidence on criminal responsibility | Johnson claims counsel failed to raise relevant sufficiency issue. | State contends claims were already addressed or not properly raised. | Invalid to rely on res judicata to bar ineffective-assistance claims; requires further fact-finding. |
| Whether first-application counsel could be ineffective for not amending to include claims against direct-appeal counsel | Johnson asserts conflict and failure to amend prejudiced his case. | State argues issue precluded by prior review and lack of viable claim. | Remand to permit development of these claims consistent with due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berlin v. State, 698 N.W.2d 266 (N.D. 2005) (district court may dismiss on state-pleaded failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b) sparingly; res judicata/misuse defenses are affirmative)
- State v. Johnson, 756 N.W.2d 548 (N.D. 2008) (per curiam addressing sufficiency of evidence in criminal act phase)
- Johnson v. State, 756 N.W.2d 548 (N.D. 2008) (per curiam disposition referenced for sufficiency of evidence (criminal act))
- Jacob v. State, 782 N.W.2d 61 (N.D. 2010) (standards for reviewing factual findings in post-conviction relief)
- Delvo v. State, 782 N.W.2d 72 (N.D. 2010) (treatment of summary denial of post-conviction relief)
- Noorlun v. State, 736 N.W.2d 477 (N.D. 2007) (guidance on standard of review and post-conviction procedure)