Eagleman v. State, 20150145.

Decision Date15 March 2016
Docket NumberNo. 20150145.,20150145.
Citation877 N.W.2d 1
Parties Matthew Alan EAGLEMAN, Petitioner and Appellant v. STATE of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee.
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court

Benjamin C. Pulkrabek(on brief), Mandan, ND, for petitioner and appellant.

Lonnie Olson(on brief), State's Attorney, Devils Lake, ND, for respondent and appellee.

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice.

[¶ 1]Matthew Eagleman appealed from district court orders summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief and his motion for new trial.We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

I

[¶ 2] In 2002, Eagleman pled guilty to gross sexual imposition and harboring a runaway.After twice violating his probation, the district court revoked Eagleman's probation and sentenced him in 2011.This 2011 sentence included a third probationary term.In 2012, the State moved to correct this sentence because, under State v. Stavig,2006 ND 63, 711 N.W.2d 183, a defendant cannot be sentenced to more than two terms of probation for the same crime, rendering Eagleman's 2011 sentence illegal.The district court held another sentencing hearing on October 16, 2012.On October 31, 2012, the court entered a corrective order sentencing Eagleman to twenty years in prison with credit for time served.On appeal, this Court affirmed the sentence.State v. Eagleman,2013 ND 101, 831 N.W.2d 759.

[¶ 3] In December 2013, Eagleman moved the district court to correct what he argued was an illegal sentence.This motion contained arguments similar to those we rejected in his 2013 appeal.In February 2014, the district court dismissed the motion.Eagleman appealed that order.In May 2014, Eagleman withdrew the appeal.In June 2014, Eagleman filed an application for post-conviction relief, arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the October 2012 sentencing hearing because, among other alleged deficiencies, his counsel failed to request a recent risk assessment concerning his classification as a sexually dangerous individual.In April 2015, the district court summarily dismissed the application, concluding Eagleman already exercised his right to post-conviction relief, the application was a reiteration of previously adjudicated claims, and the statute of limitations barred the application.

[¶ 4] Eagleman moved for a new trial on May 7, 2015, again arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the 2012 sentencing hearing.On May 8, 2015, Eagleman appealed the district court's April 2015 order dismissing his application for post-conviction relief.On June 5, 2015, we temporarily remanded Eagleman's appeal from the order dismissing Eagleman's application so the district court could rule on Eagleman's motion for new trial, which the district court denied on June 16, 2015.On June 28, 2015, Eagleman filed a consolidated appeal from the order dismissing his application for post-conviction relief and from the order denying his motion for new trial.

II

[¶ 5]The district court dismissed Eagleman's application for post-conviction relief because the court concluded Eagleman previously exercised his right to post-conviction relief, the application was a reiteration of previously adjudicated claims, and the statute of limitations barred the application.

A

[¶ 6] Although not citing a specific statutory provision, by dismissing Eagleman's application as a reiteration of previous claims and because Eagleman already exercised his right to post-conviction relief, the district court presumably dismissed Eagleman's application under N.D.C.C. § 29–32.1–12(1).Section 29–32.1–12(1), N.D.C.C., provides: "An application for post-conviction relief may be denied on the ground that the same claim or claims were fully and finally determined in a previous proceeding.""Petitioners are not entitled to post-conviction relief when their claims are variations of previous claims that have been rejected in prior proceedings."Smestad v. State,2011 ND 163, ¶ 6, 801 N.W.2d 691.The court concluded Eagleman already exercised his right to post-conviction relief because of his 2005 appeal to this Court.Eagleman v. State,2005 ND 164, 704 N.W.2d 573.The court also concluded the application was a reiteration of claims previously addressed by the district court and this Court because of Eagleman's 2013 appeal to this Court.State v. Eagleman,2013 ND 101, 831 N.W.2d 759.

[¶ 7] In Eagleman's prior appeals, we considered issues different from those presented by the current appeal.In the 2005 appeal, we considered whether Eagleman received ineffective assistance of counsel during an April 2004 evidentiary hearing, whether there was previously unheard evidence, and whether he was coerced into withdrawing an earlier application for post-conviction relief.Eagleman,2005 ND 164, 704 N.W.2d 573.In the 2013 appeal, we considered whether the district court exceeded its authority or abused its discretion by sentencing Eagleman to the maximum sentence allowed by law and whether the district court relied on impermissible sentencing factors.Eagleman,2013 ND 101, ¶¶ 5, 13, 831 N.W.2d 759.Eagleman's current application alleges he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the 2012 sentencing hearing.While we rejected Eagleman's previous claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in his 2005 appeal, that previous claim concerned conduct occurring at the April 2004 evidentiary hearing and did not concern the conduct of which Eagleman now complains.While we have heard an appeal from the 2012 sentencing hearing, we have not previously considered whether Eagleman's counsel was ineffective.Although Eagleman may have a prolific litigious streak, the courts have not addressed the issues contained in the current appeal.The district court erred in its contrary conclusion.

B

[¶ 8]The district court also dismissed Eagleman's application as untimely under N.D.C.C. § 29–32.1–01(2).The State fleetingly argues the two year statute of limitations under N.D.C.C. § 29–32.1–01(2) began at entry of the 2002 judgment of conviction, making the application untimely.This requires us to determine when Eagleman's conviction became "final" for the purposes of N.D.C.C. § 29–32.1–01(2)."Statutory interpretation is a question of law, fully reviewable on appeal."Teigen v. State,2008 ND 88, ¶ 19, 749 N.W.2d 505.In interpreting a statute:

Words in a statute are given their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, unless defined in the code or unless the drafters clearly intended otherwise.Statutes are construed as a whole and are harmonized to give meaning to related provisions.If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the letter of the statute cannot be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.A statute is ambiguous if it is susceptible to different, rational meanings.If the language is ambiguous or doubtful in meaning, the court may consider extrinsic aids, such as legislative history, to determine legislative intent.

State ex rel. North Dakota Dep't of Labor v. Matrix Props. Corp.,2009 ND 137, ¶ 8, 770 N.W.2d 290(quotingSauby v. City of Fargo,2008 ND 60, ¶ 8, 747 N.W.2d 65(internal citations and quotations omitted)).

[¶ 9] The Uniform Post–Conviction Procedure Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 29–32.1, governs all post-conviction proceedings."The purpose of the Uniform Post–Conviction Procedure Act is ‘to develop a complete record to challenge a criminal conviction and sentence.’ "Holbach v. City of Minot,2012 ND 117, ¶ 16, 817 N.W.2d 340(quotingState v. Wilson,466 N.W.2d 101, 103(N.D.1991) ).In 2013, the legislature enacted a statute of limitations for post-conviction relief applications that aimed "to cut off repetitive, stale, and meritless claims that chew up the time and resources of prosecutors, indigent defense counsel, and the courts."Hearing on S.B. 2227 Before the Senate JudiciaryComm., 63rd N.D. Legis. Sess.(Feb. 5, 2013)(testimony of Justice Dale Sandstrom, North Dakota Judicial Conference).

[¶ 10]The legislature codified these limitations at N.D.C.C. § 29–32.1–01(2), under which "an application for relief under this chapter must be filed within two years of the date the conviction becomes final."A conviction becomes "final" when:

a. The time for appeal of the conviction to the North Dakota supreme court expires; b. If an appeal was taken to the North Dakota supreme court, the time for petitioning the United States supreme court for review expires; or c. If review was sought in the United States supreme court, the date the supreme court issues a final order in the case.

Id.Section 29–32.1–01(3), N.D.C.C., provides three exceptions to when a conviction becomes "final."Eagleman does not argue any of these exceptions apply to his case and they are not part of our consideration.

[¶ 11] A person convicted and sentenced for a crime may seek post-conviction relief on a number of grounds allowed by the legislature.N.D.C.C. § 29–32.1–01(1).An applicant may seek post-conviction relief for an unlawful conviction or where a court without jurisdiction rendered the judgment of conviction.N.D.C.C. § 29–32.1–01(1)(a), (b), (c).An applicant may seek post-conviction relief for sentences not authorized by law, imposed in violation of the state or federal constitutions, or imposed by a court without jurisdiction.N.D.C.C. § 29–32.1–01(1)(a), (c), (d).Additionally, an applicant may seek post-conviction relief relating to the unlawful revocation of probation.N.D.C.C. § 29–32.1–01(1)(g).The ability to seek post-conviction relief from both an original conviction and from a revocation of probation, which are independent of one another, recognizes an error relating to the revocation of probation and accompanying sentence would be independent and subsequent to any error regarding the original conviction and accompanying sentence.See alsoN.D.C.C. § 29–28–06(2)(providing the statutory right to appeal from a final judgment of conviction);State v. Causer,2004 ND 75, ¶ 23, 678 N.W.2d 552(no...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
8 cases
  • Wisham v. Bertsch
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of North Dakota
    • November 15, 2018
    ...final, unless a specific exception applies. These procedural defenses are regularly enforced by North Dakota courts. E.g., Eagleman v. State, 2016 ND 54, 877 N.W.2d 1; Tweed v. State, 2011 ND 228, ¶ 12, 807 N.W.2d 599; Steen v. State, 2007 ND 123, ¶¶ 13-17, 736 N.W.2d 457; Laib v. State, 20......
  • Froemke v. Carter (In re Froemke)
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • August 17, 2023
    ...to sell property. "A district court abuses its discretion when it fails to address nonfrivolous issues presented to the court." Eagleman v. State , 2016 ND 54, ¶ 19, 877 N.W.2d 1. (quotations and citations omitted). "A district court abuses its discretion only if it acts in an arbitrary, un......
  • Rufus v. Sayler
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of North Dakota
    • February 21, 2018
    ...final, unless a specific exception applies. These procedural defenses are regularly enforced by North Dakota courts. E.g., Eagleman v. State, 2016 ND 54, 877 N.W.2d 1; Tweed v. State, 2011 ND 228, ¶ 12, 807 N.W.2d 599; Steen v. State, 2007 ND 123, ¶¶ 13-17, 736 N.W.2d 457; Laib v. State, 20......
  • Damon John White Bird Solgado v. Braun
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of North Dakota
    • November 7, 2017
    ...final, unless a specific exception applies. These procedural defenses are regularly enforced by North Dakota courts. E.g., Eagleman v. State, 2016 ND 54, 877 N.W.2d 1; Tweed v. State, 2011 ND 228, ¶ 12, 807 N.W.2d 599; Steen v. State, 2007 ND 123, ¶¶ 13-17, 736 N.W.2d 457; Laib v. State, 20......
  • Get Started for Free

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT