State v. Vogt, 933 N.W.2d 916

In 2014 Vogt pleaded guilty to one count of gross sexual imposition and was sentenced.
Vogt sought post-conviction relief in 2015 (denied and affirmed on appeal) and filed a second PCR in 2017 (denied; no appeal).
On March 7, 2019 Vogt filed a N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(d) motion (treated as a motion to vacate judgment / withdraw plea) alleging coerced confession, attorney misinformation about sentence, and an involuntary plea.
The State answered on March 11, 2019, raising affirmative defenses (res judicata / misuse of process) but did not file a formal motion for summary disposition.
The district court denied Vogt’s motion on March 13, 2019—after the State’s answer and before Vogt was given notice or an opportunity under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 to respond to any motion for summary disposition.
Vogt filed a reply on March 25, 2019; the court issued a confirming order; the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	State's Argument	Vogt's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly summarily dismissed Vogt’s motion after the State answered without providing notice under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2	The claims were barred as previously litigated (res judicata / misuse of process); dismissal appropriate	The court erred by dismissing after the State answered without providing the Rule 3.2 notice and opportunity to be heard	Reversed — after the State responded, the court could not summarily dismiss sua sponte without providing the Rule 3.2 notice/opportunity; dismissal was inappropriate
Whether Vogt’s Rule 11(d) motion should be treated as a subsequent post-conviction application	The motion reasserts previously litigated ineffective-assistance claims and is properly treated as successive PCR	Vogt framed it as a Rule 11 motion but acknowledged prior PCR filings	Court treated the filing as a third application for post-conviction relief (successive) for procedural purposes
Whether the court properly decided the merits (plea voluntary / knowing) in the summary order	The plea was knowing and voluntary; claims lack merit due to prior adjudication	Vogt alleged coercion, misinformation about sentence, and involuntariness — meritorious factual questions exist	Court did not resolve merits on appeal; Supreme Court remanded for proper procedure and further proceedings

Vogt v. State, 2016 ND 48, 876 N.W.2d 485 (affirming denial of Vogt’s earlier post-conviction relief)
Gonzalez v. State, 2019 ND 47, 923 N.W.2d 143 (a court may only summarily dismiss sua sponte under § 29-32.1-09(1) before the State responds)
Ourada v. State, 2019 ND 10, 921 N.W.2d 677 (same principle limiting sua sponte summary dismissal)
Chase v. State, 2019 ND 214 (treating answers as motions for summary disposition requires Rule 3.2 notice and opportunity to be heard)
Chisholm v. State, 2014 ND 125, 848 N.W.2d 703 (when a court relies on matters outside the application, defendant must receive notice and an opportunity to present evidence)
State v. Gress, 2011 ND 233, 807 N.W.2d 567 (motions filed after prior PCRs may be treated as successive applications to prevent evasion of PCR bounds)
State v. Atkins, 2019 ND 145, 928 N.W.2d 441 (discussing treatment of subsequent filings as post-conviction applications)