Palmer v. State, 2012 ND 237

Summary

Mark Palmer appealed the denial of his N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) motion seeking relief from an order denying his application for post-conviction relief. The North Dakota Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that counsel's failure to respond to the State's summary-dismissal motion did not constitute sufficient mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. The court affirmed the district court's denial of relief.

Holdings

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Palmer's motion for relief because counsel's failure to respond to the State's motion did not establish sufficient grounds under Rule 60(b)(1) to disturb the order denying post-conviction relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Palmer's N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) motion for relief from the order denying his application for post-conviction relief based on counsel's mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

Disposition

affirmed