Yoney v. State
2021 ND 132
| N.D. | 2021Background
- In 2019 a jury convicted Travis Yoney of multiple offenses, including attempted murder; the attempted murder jury instruction said he acted to "intentionally or knowingly cause the death" of the victim.
- On direct appeal Yoney argued attempted "knowing" murder is non-cognizable, but the Court declined to reach the issue because Yoney’s trial counsel had submitted the instruction (invited error).
- Yoney filed for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (for proposing the instruction and for conceding guilt without consent); the State moved to summarily dismiss and the district court granted dismissal.
- While this appeal was pending the Court decided Pemberton v. State, holding attempted "knowing" murder is a non-cognizable offense because attempt requires intent to kill.
- The Supreme Court held counsel’s submission of the instruction was not constitutionally ineffective (law unsettled at trial), but on the basis of Pemberton vacated Yoney’s attempted murder conviction and remanded for a new trial on that count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for submitting an attempted-murder instruction including "knowingly" | Yoney: instruction allowed conviction of a non-cognizable offense; counsel deficient | State: law was unsettled; counsel’s conduct reasonable; Yoney invited the error | Counsel not ineffective; but conviction vacated under Pemberton (see below) |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for conceding guilt without Yoney's consent | Yoney: attorney admitted violations and conceded possession/guilt against his wishes | State: alleged concessions were trial strategy to negate intent; no evidence client objected | Dismissal affirmed — no prejudice shown and no competent evidence counsel acted against instructions |
| Whether attempted "knowing" murder is a cognizable offense | Yoney: attempted knowing murder is non-cognizable | State: at trial the law was not clearly established; invited error | Pemberton controls: attempted "knowing" murder is non-cognizable; conviction vacated and remanded for new trial on that charge |
| Whether summary dismissal of postconviction application was proper / whether evidentiary hearing required | Yoney: asserted ineffective assistance, requested relief and hearing | State: moved for summary dismissal; argued no genuine factual dispute | Summary dismissal proper on ineffective-assistance claims — Yoney failed to present competent admissible evidence raising genuine factual dispute |
Key Cases Cited
- Pemberton v. State, 2021 ND 85, 959 N.W.2d 891 (holding attempted "knowing" murder is a non-cognizable offense because attempt requires intent to kill)
- State v. Swanson, 2019 ND 181, 930 N.W.2d 645 ("knowingly" can permit conviction without intent; conspiracy to "knowingly" commit murder non-cognizable)
- Dominguez v. State, 2013 ND 249, 840 N.W.2d 596 (attempted murder requires intent to kill; earlier language suggesting "knowingly" could suffice clarified)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing the two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- State v. Whitman, 2013 ND 183, 838 N.W.2d 401 (high court may notice obvious errors that affect fairness or integrity of proceedings)
- McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (defendant has the right to insist on the objective of maintaining innocence; counsel may not concede guilt over client's objection)