Murchison v. State, No. 970390

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
Writing for the CourtNEUMANN
Citation1998 ND 96,578 N.W.2d 514
Docket NumberNo. 970390
Decision Date28 April 1998
PartiesKenneth J. MURCHISON a/k/a Kenneth J. Murchinson, Applicant and Appellant, v. STATE of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee. Civil

Page 514

578 N.W.2d 514
1998 ND 96
Kenneth J. MURCHISON a/k/a Kenneth J. Murchinson, Applicant
and Appellant,
v.
STATE of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee.
Civil No. 970390.
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
April 28, 1998.

Kenneth Murchinson, pro se, applicant and appellant.

Patricia L. Burke, State's Attorney, Bismarck, for respondent and appellee.

NEUMANN, Justice.

¶1 Kenneth Murchison, a/k/a Kenneth Murchinson, appeals from the Burleigh County District Court's order denying his application for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

Page 515

¶2 Murchison was tried and convicted of delivery of marijuana in March 1995. Murchison appealed his conviction, which was affirmed in State v. Murchison, 541 N.W.2d 435 (N.D.1995). Murchison filed an application for post-conviction relief on January 19, 1996. In his application, Murchison alleged the trial court had violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial, the trial court lacked jurisdiction at the time of trial, and he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Murchison, by two separate letters, requested new counsel be appointed for him. The trial court denied his request for counsel and denied his application on the basis those issues were previously raised and decided in Murchison's direct appeal of his conviction. Murchison did not appeal from the trial court's denial of his January 19, 1996, application for post-conviction relief.

¶3 On May 21, 1996, Murchison again applied for postconviction relief, claiming he had been denied due process, the trial court lacked jurisdiction at the time of trial, and his attorney failed to secure his right to a speedy trial under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition and Detainers Act under N.D.C.C. ch. 29-33 (apparently another ineffective assistance of counsel claim). On June 26, 1996, the trial court entered an order relieving Murchison's court-appointed attorney, and denying his request for another court-appointed attorney. 1 Murchison appealed that order to this Court. We dismissed the appeal as interlocutory and not appealable without a final disposition on the application for post-conviction relief. The record reflects the trial court had not ruled on the June 26, 1996, application for post-conviction relief. 2

¶4 Murchison filed a third application for post-conviction relief on November 24, 1997. In this application, Murchison claimed the trial court lacked jurisdiction at the time of his conviction and sentence, the conviction was obtained in violation of his privilege against self-incrimination, and he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied the application on the ground those issues had already been raised and answered in previous appeals to the Supreme Court. Murchison appeals.

I

¶5 On appeal, Murchison argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction at the time of trial. Murchison contends the trial court lost jurisdiction when he was not tried within ninety days after he requested a speedy trial under N.D.C.C. § 29-33-03 of the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act. Murchison's argument is without merit.

¶6 Under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act, a prisoner has the right to have any pending criminal action brought to trial within ninety days of a written request, unless the time is extended by stipulation or for good cause. N.D.C.C. § 29-33-03. After a written request is made, the trial court loses jurisdiction if a trial is not held within the ninety-day period. N.D.C.C. § 29-33-03. However, as noted in Murchison's original appeal of his conviction, "that right does not exist here because Murchison did not make a written request under N.D.C.C. § 29-33-01 after he was imprisoned in September 1994." Murchison, 541 N.W.2d at 438, n. 1.

¶7 Murchison brings this appeal under the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act, Chapter 29-32.1, N.D.C.C. Section 29-32.1-12(1), N.D.C.C., allows for applications for post-conviction relief to be denied if the same claim or claims were fully and finally determined in a previous proceeding. Murchison raised jurisdiction as an issue in two previous applications for post-conviction relief, and in his direct appeal of his conviction. As we noted in State v. Manke, 361 N.W.2d 247, 248 (N.D.1985), postconviction proceedings

Page 516

are not intended to allow a defendant multiple opportunities to raise the same issues. 3 When issues have been previously raised on direct appeal of a conviction, they cannot be raised again in a subsequent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 practice notes
  • State v. Norman, No. 20020172.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • April 24, 2003
    ...2002 ND 65, ¶ 32, 643 N.W.2d 29. "An issue not supported by argument in a brief will not be considered on appeal." Murchison v. State, 1998 ND 96, ¶ 13, 578 N.W.2d 514. Accordingly, we do not decide Norman's ex post facto [¶ 23] However, our research has revealed multiple cases, not cited i......
  • Owens v. State, No. 20000128
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • January 30, 2001
    ...overlooked. [¶ 33] In Berlin v. State, 2000 ND 206, 619 N.W.2d 623, Silvesan v. State, 1999 ND 62, 591 N.W.2d 131, Murchison v. State, 1998 ND 96, 578 N.W.2d 514, and State v. Johnson, 1997 ND 235, 571 N.W.2d 372, we rejected claims of error because the claim could and should have been rais......
  • Johnson v. State, No. 20030256 | 20030257
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • June 30, 2004
    ...multiple opportunities to raise the same or similar issues. E.g., Silvesan v. State, 1999 ND 62, ¶ 10, 591 N.W.2d 131; Murchison v. State, 1998 ND 96, ¶ 7, 578 N.W.2d 514; State v. Manke, 361 N.W.2d 247, 248 (N.D. 1985). A defendant who inexcusably fails to raise all his claims in a single ......
  • Owens v. State, Nos. 970193
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • May 20, 1998
    ...relief. It is well settled an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See Murchison v. State, 1998 ND 96, p 15, 578 N.W.2d 514. We decline to address those ¶51 We conclude the trial court properly denied Owens' applications for post-conviction reli......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
29 cases
  • State v. Norman, No. 20020172.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • April 24, 2003
    ...2002 ND 65, ¶ 32, 643 N.W.2d 29. "An issue not supported by argument in a brief will not be considered on appeal." Murchison v. State, 1998 ND 96, ¶ 13, 578 N.W.2d 514. Accordingly, we do not decide Norman's ex post facto [¶ 23] However, our research has revealed multiple cases, not cited i......
  • Owens v. State, No. 20000128
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • January 30, 2001
    ...overlooked. [¶ 33] In Berlin v. State, 2000 ND 206, 619 N.W.2d 623, Silvesan v. State, 1999 ND 62, 591 N.W.2d 131, Murchison v. State, 1998 ND 96, 578 N.W.2d 514, and State v. Johnson, 1997 ND 235, 571 N.W.2d 372, we rejected claims of error because the claim could and should have been rais......
  • Johnson v. State, No. 20030256 | 20030257
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • June 30, 2004
    ...multiple opportunities to raise the same or similar issues. E.g., Silvesan v. State, 1999 ND 62, ¶ 10, 591 N.W.2d 131; Murchison v. State, 1998 ND 96, ¶ 7, 578 N.W.2d 514; State v. Manke, 361 N.W.2d 247, 248 (N.D. 1985). A defendant who inexcusably fails to raise all his claims in a single ......
  • Owens v. State, Nos. 970193
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • May 20, 1998
    ...relief. It is well settled an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See Murchison v. State, 1998 ND 96, p 15, 578 N.W.2d 514. We decline to address those ¶51 We conclude the trial court properly denied Owens' applications for post-conviction reli......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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