State v. Atkins

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Cody Michael Atkins's motions to withdraw his guilty plea and for a new trial. The court held that the motions were properly treated as a post-conviction relief application, that certain claims were barred by misuse of process or res judicata, and that the asserted text messages and sexual-assault-kit evidence did not satisfy the requirements for newly discovered evidence.

Holdings

1. A defendant may not avoid the Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act by labeling a collateral motion as arising under a rule of criminal procedure or by filing it in the criminal case rather than as a new post-conviction action. Atkins's motion was properly treated as a third application for post-conviction relief.
2. Atkins's claim that the district court violated N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 was barred by misuse of process because he inexcusably failed to renew the claim in his previous post-conviction proceedings after the claim was not reached on direct appeal.
3. Atkins's ineffective-assistance claim was barred by res judicata, and any materially different allegations were also barred by misuse of process.
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial because Atkins failed to establish that the text messages and sexual-assault-kit evidence qualified as newly discovered evidence and failed to show that the evidence would likely result in an acquittal.
5. The court declined to address Atkins's alleged conflicts involving counsel because those arguments appeared to have been raised for the first time on appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a motion to withdraw a guilty plea filed under a criminal-procedure rule and in the criminal case must be treated as an application for post-conviction relief when the defendant has previously pursued post-conviction relief.
2. Whether Atkins's claims alleging N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 violations and ineffective assistance of counsel were barred by misuse of process or res judicata.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a new trial based on alleged newly discovered text messages and sexual-assault-kit evidence.
4. Whether arguments concerning alleged conflicts involving counsel could be raised for the first time on appeal.

Disposition

affirmed