Morales v. State

2020 ND 117 (N.D. 2020) · Supreme Court of North Dakota · June 2, 2020 · No. 20200019

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of Bradley Morales’s application for post-conviction relief. Because his criminal judgment had been reversed and remanded for a new trial, and no new conviction had occurred, the court held that he was not a person convicted and sentenced for a crime under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(1) and therefore was not eligible for post-conviction relief.

Court
Supreme Court of North Dakota
Writing for the Court
Lisa Fair McEvers; Gerald W. VandeWalle; Jerod E. Tufte; Daniel J. Crothers; Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Jurisdiction
North Dakota
Decision date
June 2, 2020
Docket number
20200019
Procedural posture
Morales appealed from an order of the Ward County District Court dismissing his application for post-conviction relief by summary disposition.
Standard of review
An appeal from a summary denial of post-conviction relief is reviewed like an appeal from summary judgment. Summary disposition is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Precedential value
precedential
Parties
Bradley Joe Morales v. State of North Dakota
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

state post-conviction reliefpost-conviction reliefcriminal procedureappellate proceduredue process

Practice areas

criminal post-conviction litigationcriminal procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a person whose criminal judgment has been reversed and remanded, but who has not yet been retried, qualifies as a person convicted of a crime eligible to seek post-conviction relief under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(1).
  2. Whether the district court erred or denied due process by dismissing Morales’s post-conviction application without an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective-assistance claim.

Holdings

  1. A person whose criminal judgment has been reversed and remanded, and who has not yet been convicted again, is not a person who has been convicted of a crime within the meaning of N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(1) and is therefore not entitled to post-conviction relief.
  2. The district court properly dismissed Morales’s application because, as a matter of law, he was not eligible for post-conviction relief after reversal of his judgment and before a new conviction.

Key quotations

An appellate reversal vacates the judgment so that the parties are placed in the same position as before entry of the judgment. (¶ 4)
At this point, because the judgment was reversed and remanded, and a new trial has not occurred, Morales has not been convicted of a crime. (¶ 5)

Factual background

Morales was charged with murder and convicted by a jury. After the criminal judgment was entered, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial. Before a new trial occurred, Morales filed an application for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during his criminal trial.

Procedural history

Morales was convicted by a jury of murder, and a criminal judgment was entered in September 2018. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial in July 2019. Before a new trial was scheduled, Morales applied for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court dismissed the application, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…