State, ex rel. Madden v. Rustad
2012 ND 242
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Haag pled guilty in May 2011 to possession of JWH-018 with intent to deliver and to drug paraphernalia related to November 12, 2010.
- In November 2011 Haag petitioned for post-conviction relief arguing JWH-018 was not a prohibited substance at the time of his acts.
- The State argued the Board of Pharmacy’s final rule designating JWH-018 as prohibited was already in effect in October 2010 prior to Haag’s conduct.
- The district court denied post-conviction relief summarily, applying Nickel to distinguish an emergency interim rule from a final rule and concluding a final rule was effective by October 2010.
- The court concluded Nickel did not invalidate the final rule; JWH-018 was prohibited when Haag’s acts occurred, and the petition was properly denied.
- In 2011, the legislature codified JWH-018 as prohibited; the court stated this did not retroactively invalidate the final rule’s earlier effect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was JWH-018 prohibited on Nov. 12, 2010? | Haag argues the acts were not illegal without an valid final rule. | State contends the final rule was in effect by Oct. 2010, making the acts illegal. | Yes; JWH-018 was prohibited. |
| Does Nickel invalidate the final-rule effect in Haag? | Nickel invalidated the emergency interim rule, so Haag’s conduct was not illegal. | Nickel is not controlling; a final rule was in effect by Oct. 2010. | Nickel not controlling; final rule valid by Oct. 2010. |
| Did the 2011 codification affect the prior rule’s operation? | Codification post-dates Haag’s actions and should not affect preexisting rule. | Legislature may alter the legal landscape, but rules already in effect remain valid. | Codification did not invalidate the prior final rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wong v. State, 2011 ND 201 (N.D. 2011) (post-conviction review is civil; questions of law reviewed de novo)
- Delvo v. State, 2010 ND 78 (N.D. 2010) (questions of law in post-conviction relief; standard of review)
- Syvertson v. State, 2005 ND 128 (N.D. 2005) (standard for post-conviction review and motions)
- Henke v. State, 2009 ND 117 (N.D. 2009) (summary denial standard for post-conviction relief)
- Vandeberg v. State, 2003 ND 71 (N.D. 2003) (summary disposition standards in post-conviction appeals)
- State v. Nickel, 2011 ND 200 (N.D. 2011) (emergency interim final rule validity; notice requirements; final rule timing)