Summary
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the summary dismissal of Rodney Chisholm’s second application for postconviction relief. The court held that his ineffective-assistance claim concerning postconviction counsel was barred by statute and that his remaining claims were barred by res judicata; it also addressed notice of the State’s request for summary disposition and related procedural motions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Chisholm had adequate notice of the State's request for summary disposition when the request was included in the State's answer rather than a separately filed motion.
- Whether a claim for constitutionally ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel is cognizable in a proceeding under North Dakota's Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act.
- Whether Chisholm's remaining postconviction claims were barred by res judicata because they were raised or could have been raised in his prior postconviction proceeding.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Chisholm's motions for recusal, to compel discovery, and to correct the record.
Holdings
- A postconviction applicant is effectively on notice of the State's request for summary disposition when the applicant acknowledges that request in a reply brief before the district court grants it, even though the State embedded the request in its answer without separately serving a motion.
- A claim of constitutionally ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel is not permitted in a proceeding under North Dakota's Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act and must be dismissed.
- Claims in a successive postconviction application are barred by res judicata when they were raised or could have been raised in a prior action between the same parties.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Chisholm's motions for recusal, to compel discovery, and to correct the record.
Key quotations
“district courts are required to dismiss an applicant’s claims of ineffective assistance of post-conviction relief counsel in a Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act proceeding.” (¶ 13)
“Res judicata prevents relitigation of claims that were raised, or could have been raised, in prior actions between the same parties.” (¶ 16)
Factual background
Chisholm was convicted of murder in 2011 and sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment. After pursuing a prior postconviction proceeding concerning counsel's effectiveness and the waiver of lesser-included-offense instructions, he filed a second application alleging newly discovered evidence of trial-judge bias, erroneous jury instructions, and ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel. The State asserted res judicata, and Chisholm acknowledged the State's request for summary disposition in his reply brief.
Procedural history
Chisholm was convicted of murder in 2011 and his conviction was affirmed. His first postconviction application, alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, was initially denied, reversed and remanded, and ultimately affirmed. He filed a second application in January 2018 alleging newly discovered evidence of judicial bias, erroneous jury instructions, and ineffective assistance of prior postconviction counsel. The district court denied his recusal and discovery motions and summarily dismissed the application; the Supreme Court affirmed.