Coppage v. State

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the summary dismissal of Ernest Coppage’s successive application for post-conviction relief. The court held that Coppage’s allegations of ineffective assistance by his prior post-conviction counsel raised genuine issues of material fact concerning his evidentiary and prosecutorial-misconduct claims. The court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, declining to address claims that Coppage did not pursue on appeal.

Holdings

1. A claim of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel may be raised in a successive post-conviction proceeding and may provide an excuse for failing to raise other claims in a prior proceeding; res judicata did not bar Coppage's distinct claim that his post-conviction counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge trial and appellate counsel's performance.
2. Summary dismissal was improper because Coppage's affidavit and related filings presented evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact about whether his prior post-conviction counsel was ineffective and whether that ineffectiveness excused his failure to raise the evidentiary and prosecutorial-misconduct claims earlier.
3. The court declined to address the double-jeopardy and jury-deliberation claims because Coppage did not argue on appeal that the district court erred in dismissing those claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court properly summarily dismissed Coppage's claims concerning evidence and prosecutorial misconduct as barred by res judicata or misuse of process.
2. Whether Coppage's allegations that his prior post-conviction counsel was ineffective raised a genuine issue of material fact requiring an evidentiary hearing.
3. Whether Coppage's claims concerning double jeopardy and the failure to return the jury for further deliberations should be addressed on appeal when Coppage did not challenge their dismissal.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded