State ex rel. I.R.S. v. Landrus
2011 ND 173
| N.D. | 2011Background
- On September 14, 2009, Overlie pled guilty to one count of DVPO violation—second or subsequent offense under a binding plea.
- District court sentenced Overlie to one year with all but thirteen days suspended for two years, with supervised probation.
- Probation was later revoked for violations, and Overlie was resentenced to two years of incarceration.
- In June 2010, Overlie moved to reduce his sentence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(b); the district court denied.
- On March 11, 2011, Overlie filed a pro se post-conviction relief application alleging undisclosed favorable evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The State responded on March 15, 2011, asking for a hearing on ineffective assistance and opposing relief; the response argued grounds were inaccurate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court could dismiss post-conviction relief on its own initiative | Overlie | State | Not permissible; requires notice and opportunity to respond |
| Whether the State's response functioned as a proper motion for summary dismissal | Overlie | State | State failed to move for summary dismissal; not entitled to judgment as a matter of law |
| Whether post-conviction relief allows development of new evidence for ineffective assistance claims | Overlie | State | Yes; requires an evidentiary hearing to develop the record |
| Whether Overlie was entitled to notice and a 30-day response period | Overlie | State | District court erred by not providing notice and time to respond |
Key Cases Cited
- Wheeler v. State, 2008 ND 109 (ND) (post-conviction relief governed by civil procedure rules)
- Berlin v. State, 2005 ND 110 (ND) (summary dismissal standards for post-conviction relief)
- Sambursky v. State, 2006 ND 223 (ND) (summary disposition standards in post-conviction proceedings)
- Parizek v. State, 2006 ND 61 (ND) (State must demonstrate entitlement to judgment; not mere opposition)
- Bender v. State, 1998 ND 72 (ND) (post-conviction procedures allow development of additional evidence; unfair to summary-dismiss lacking record)
- Vandeberg v. State, 2003 ND 71 (ND) (noted limitations on record and evidence in post-conviction relief)
- Wong v. State, 2010 ND 219 (ND) (summary dismissal treated like civil summary judgment; notice requirements)
- Henke v. State, 2009 ND 117 (ND) (inherent authority to summarily dismiss with no genuine issues of material fact)
- Ude v. State, 2009 ND 71 (ND) (burden shifting in post-conviction proceedings upon summary dismissal motion)
- Hearing not required in certain PSC contexts (implied), N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-04 (ND) (requires concise grounds; evidentiary support unnecessary in initial application)