Craig v. State

2021 ND 204 (2021) · Supreme Court of North Dakota · November 17, 2021 · No. 20210108

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Russell Frank Craig’s application for postconviction relief. The court held that Craig’s claims concerning his parole date and alleged ex post facto violation were barred by res judicata because they had been raised or could have been raised in prior proceedings. The court concluded that the State properly pleaded and established the affirmative defense under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-12.

Court
Supreme Court of North Dakota
Writing for the Court
Jon J. Jensen, Chief Justice; Gerald W. VandeWalle; Daniel J. Crothers; Lisa Fair McEvers; Jerod E. Tufte
Jurisdiction
North Dakota
Decision date
November 17, 2021
Docket number
20210108
Procedural posture
Appeal from a district court judgment granting the State's motion for summary disposition and dismissing Craig's application for postconviction relief on res judicata grounds.
Standard of review
The court reviews summary denial or dismissal of postconviction relief as it would an appeal from summary judgment. The opposing party receives all reasonable inferences, and an evidentiary hearing is required if a reasonable inference raises a genuine issue of material fact; for summary judgment purposes, the opposing party's evidentiary assertions are assumed true.
Precedential value
Published opinion; precedential
Parties
Russell Frank Craig v. State of North Dakota
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

state post-conviction reliefsuccessive petitionspost-conviction reliefappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

Post-conviction reliefCriminal procedureAppellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Craig's claims concerning the legality of his sentence and an alleged ex post facto violation were barred by res judicata because they were raised or could have been raised in earlier proceedings.
  2. Whether the district court properly granted summary disposition and dismissed Craig's postconviction-relief application.

Holdings

  1. Under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-12(1), res judicata bars postconviction-relief claims that were fully and finally determined in a previous proceeding, including claims that could have been raised in an earlier proceeding. Craig's claims were therefore barred.
  2. The district court properly granted summary disposition and dismissed Craig's postconviction-relief application because the claims were barred by res judicata.

Key quotations

Res judicata prevents relitigation of claims that were raised, or could have been raised, in prior actions between the same parties. (¶ 9)
The district court did not err in finding Craig’s claims to be barred from further litigation by the doctrine of res judicata. (¶ 12)

Factual background

Craig pleaded guilty to murder in 2007 and was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. He pursued postconviction relief in 2013, and that proceeding was summarily dismissed. In 2018 he moved to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting issues including the legality of his sentence and ex post facto concerns, but the motion was denied and the denial was affirmed. In his 2020 postconviction application, he again challenged the movement of his parole date under the ex post facto prohibition.

Procedural history

Craig pleaded guilty to murder in 2007 and received a life sentence with the possibility of parole. His first postconviction proceeding, filed in 2013, was summarily dismissed. After the district court denied his 2018 motion to withdraw his guilty plea, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. Craig filed another postconviction application in 2020, alleging that his parole date had been moved in violation of ex post facto law; the district court granted summary disposition for the State and dismissed the application, and Craig appealed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…