Summary
The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the dismissal of Timothy Klose's second application for post-conviction relief. The court held that his claims were barred by res judicata or misuse of process and that he failed to present evidence establishing ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel or a genuine issue of material fact.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Klose's second post-conviction claims were barred by res judicata or misuse of process.
- Whether Klose raised a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing on his claim that first post-conviction counsel was ineffective.
- Whether Klose's stipulation to factual elements of the offenses was an Alford guilty plea requiring application of North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b).
- Whether Klose was entitled to appointed counsel and a free transcript for his first post-conviction appeal.
Holdings
- Claims that could have been raised in a prior proceeding or prior post-conviction application constitute a misuse of process, and claims fully and finally determined previously are barred by res judicata.
- Summary dismissal was proper because Klose presented no competent evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact that post-conviction counsel's performance was objectively unreasonable or that the alleged deficiencies probably affected the result.
- Klose did not enter a guilty or Alford plea; he stipulated to factual elements of the offenses while reserving the issue of criminal responsibility for a jury trial.
- Even assuming the stipulation was a guilty plea, the district court substantially complied with N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b), and counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the issue.
- Klose was not entitled to appointed counsel or a free transcript under the circumstances, and he could not claim ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel for an appeal on which he represented himself.
Key quotations
“Raising an issue in a second post-conviction application that could have been raised in a prior post-conviction proceeding or other proceeding is a misuse of process.” (¶ 10)
“To demonstrate prejudice, the defendant must establish a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different, and the defendant must specify how and where counsel was incompetent and the probable different result.” (¶ 13)
“Klose has failed to raise an issue of material fact that his first post-conviction counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the result of the proceeding would have been different absent his counsel's deficient performance.” (¶ 26)
Factual background
Klose forced his way into his neighbor Raymond Schultes's apartment, struggled with Schultes, fired a shotgun, and killed him. Klose argued he was suffering from delirium tremens and lacked criminal responsibility, but a jury convicted him of murder and acquitted him of burglary on that basis. In his second post-conviction application, Klose asserted that his plea-related issues, trial-counsel claims, and claims concerning his first post-conviction counsel had not been adequately reviewed.
Procedural history
Klose was convicted of murder after a bifurcated proceeding in which he stipulated to certain factual elements but preserved the issue of criminal responsibility; he was acquitted of burglary. This Court affirmed his conviction in State v. Klose, 2003 ND 39. The district court denied his first application for post-conviction relief, and this Court affirmed in Klose v. State, 2005 ND 192. The district court summarily dismissed his second application, and Klose appealed.