John Clark Bridges, Petitioner and Appellant v. State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
Nos. 20220077-20220079 & 20220086
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
JULY 21, 2022
2022 ND 147
Appeals from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Opinion of the Court by McEvers, Justice, joined by Chief Justice Jensen and Justices Crothers and Tufte. Justice VandeWalle concurred in the result.
Kiara Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, ND, for petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief.
David L. Rappenecker, Bismarck, ND, for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief.
[¶1] John Clark Bridges appeals from district court orders and judgments granting the State‘s motions for summary disposition and denying Bridges’ applications fоr postconviction relief as untimely, barred by misuse of process and res judicata, and for lack of genuine issues of material fact. Bridges argues summary disposition of his applications was inappropriate and he was entitled to evidentiary hearings in each case. We affirm.
I
[¶2] Bridges was convicted follоwing guilty pleas to murder and kidnapping in 2012 and attempted murder in 2013. He did not appeal either conviction. Bridges previously applied for postconviction relief, and this Court affirmed the orders denying Bridges’ applications. See Bridges v. State, 2022 ND 82, 973 N.W.2d 6; Bridges v. State, 2021 ND 232, 968 N.W.2d 188.
[¶3] In June 2021, in case 08-2021-CV-01163, Bridges applied for postconviction relief related to his murder сonviction. In November 2021, in case 08-2021-CV-02060, Bridges applied for postconviction relief from his attempted murder conviction. In December 2021, in cases 08-2021-CV-02236 and 08-2021-CV-02302, Bridges filed additional applications for postconviction relief in each underlying criminal case. The State filed answers to the applications, allеging
[¶4] The district court granted each motion for summary disposition and denied Bridges’ applications for postconviction relief. The court determined Bridges’ applications were untimely, Bridges had failed to demonstrate any genuine issue of material fact, any alleged new evidence would not have had an effect on the proceedings, and Bridges’ claims were barred by res judicata and misuse of process. Bridges appeals from each ordеr.
II
[¶5] Postconviction relief proceedings are civil in nature and governed by the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure. Abdi v. State, 2021 ND 110, ¶ 8, 961 N.W.2d 303 (citing Morris v. State, 2019 ND 166, ¶ 6, 930 N.W.2d 195). The applicant bears the burden of establishing grounds for postconviction relief. Id.
[¶6] Summary disposition of an application for postconviction relief after the State responds is akin tо summary judgment under
[¶7] Applications for postconviction relief must be filed within two years of the date of the conviction becoming final.
A
[¶8] In case 08-2020-CV-01163, Bridges argues testimony by his psychiatrist at an evidentiary hearing in March 2021 on a previous application for postcоnviction relief from his murder conviction constitutes newly discovered evidence.
[¶9] Under
The defendant must show (1) the evidence was discovered after the guilty plea, (2) the failure to learn about the evidence before the plea was not the result of the defendant‘s lack of diligence, (3) the newly discovered evidence is material to what would have been the issues at trial, and (4) the weight and quality of the newly discovered evidence would likely result in an acquittal at trial.
Id. This standard predates the existence of the statute of limitation under
[¶10] The State argues the key concern under
[¶11] We agree. We conclude the test to be applied to a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence under
[¶12] We are persuaded by the Montana Supreme Court‘s decision in Marble v. State, 2015 MT 242, 380 Mont. 366, 355 P.3d 742. In Marble, the Montаna Supreme Court held it had “erred in equating a motion for new trial with a postconviction relief claim based upon newly discovered evidence because, while a motion for new trial does—by definition—contemplate a new trial, postconviction proceedings are in no way tethered to such relief.” Id. at ¶ 29. Before Marble, the Montana Supreme Court applied a standard similar to our own under
(1) [t]he evidence must have been discovered since the defendant‘s trial;
(2) the failure to discover the evidence sooner must not be the result of a lack of diligence on the defendant‘s part;
(3) the evidence must be material to the issues at trial;
(4) the evidence must be neither cumulativе nor merely impeaching; and
(5) the evidence must indicate that a new trial has a reasonable probability of resulting in a different outcome.
Marble, at ¶ 22; cf. Everett, 2016 ND 78, ¶ 17 (explaining four-part test for defendant to prevail on motion for new trial on basis of newly discovered evidence). In Marble, the State argued this five-part test was incompatible with postconviction relief. According to the State, proof “the petitioner did not engage in the criminal conduct” on an application for postconviction relief is a higher requirement than the showing of a “reasonable probability of resulting in a different outcome” on a motion for new trial. Marble, at ¶ 24. The court agreed, concluding the five-part test was inconsistent with the
[¶13] Our statute for establishing grounds for postconviction relief on the basis of newly discovered evidence is nearly idеntical to that reviewed by the Montana Supreme Court in Marble. Compare
[¶14] Here, the district court determined Bridges failed to establish that the new evidence was material to the issues in this case. The court further determined Bridges failed to show how the new evidence would likely result in an acquittal. Because Bridges failed to meet the lower standard under the four-part test above, we conclude he also fails to meet the heightened burden we announce today. Nowhere in Bridges’ aрplication does he assert the newly discovered evidence would establish he did not engage in the conduct for which he was convicted. We agree with the district court Bridges has not provided competent admissible evidence entitling him to postconviction relief. We therefore conclude the cоurt did not err in summarily dismissing Bridges’ application for postconviction relief in case 08-2020-CV-01163.
B
[¶15] In case 08-2021-CV-02060, Bridges argues testimony regarding an internal investigation conducted by the department of corrections is newly discovered evidence in his attempted murder case. Bridges also alleges he was not present at his initial aрpearance, and an order denying him a new trial in the underlying criminal case is newly discovered evidence.
[¶16] The district court concluded Bridges’ application was untimely. The court determined the internal investigation was not newly discovered, as Bridges “certainly was aware of the interview through his participatiоn in it,” Bridges was provided the investigative report in discovery, and the investigation was discussed at his sentencing hearing. Our review of the record indicates the investigation took place before Bridges’ sentencing in 2013. The court also noted it had previously addressed the internal investigation in case 08-2013-CR-02276 and in case 08-2021-CV-01171. The cоurt further found Bridges did appear at his initial appearance and, even if he had not, his absence would have been known prior to his guilty plea and therefore was not newly discovered. We agree
C
[¶17] In case 08-2021-CV-02236, Bridges argues new interpretations of
[¶18] Section
[¶19] The district court concluded Bridges’ application was untimely. The court determined Bridges failed to establish a new interpretation of law that was retroactively applicable to his case. The court explained Chisholm was not a new interpretation of law, but rather a restatement of law from Overlie v. State, 2011 ND 191, 804 N.W.2d 50, published two years before Bridges’ sentencing. The court also found Bridges had failed to present newly discovered evidence, because Bridges’ arguments regarding an internal investigation had previously been addressed in a motion for a new trial and an application for postconviction relief. The court rejected those arguments as the evidence was known to Bridges at sentencing, would not have been material, and was unlikely to result in an acquittal.
[¶20] Bridges has not cited any United States Supreme Court or North Dakota appellate court authority newly interpreting
D
[¶21] Finally, in case 08-2021-CV-02302, Bridges argues new interpretations of
III
[¶23] We affirm the district court‘s orders and judgments.
[¶24] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
I concur in the result.
Gerald W. VandeWalle