State v. Manke, Cr. N

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
Writing for the CourtERICKSTAD; Paul M. SAND
Citation361 N.W.2d 247
PartiesSTATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Byron MANKE, Defendant and Appellant. o. 1059.
Decision Date23 January 1985
Docket NumberCr. N

Page 247

361 N.W.2d 247
STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
Byron MANKE, Defendant and Appellant.
Cr. No. 1059.
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Jan. 23, 1985.

Owen K. Mehrer, State's Atty., Dickinson, for plaintiff and appellee.

Byron Manke, pro se.

PEDERSON, Surrogate Judge.

Byron Manke appeals from the district court's order dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

Page 248

Manke was tried by a Stark County district court jury and found guilty of gross sexual imposition. The relevant facts are set forth in State v. Manke, 328 N.W.2d 799 (N.D.1982), in which we affirmed Manke's conviction.

Manke filed an application for post-conviction relief with the district court. The court, concluding that Manke's application raised no issues of material fact, dismissed the application.

Manke has appealed to this Court, raising various issues relating to his application for post-conviction relief. In addition, Manke has filed a document entitled "Application For Post-Conviction Hearing SUPPLEMENT" in which he attempts to raise an additional issue.

The five issues raised in Manke's brief to this Court all deal with the admission into evidence of a laboratory report prepared by Aaron Rash, a chemist with the State Laboratory Department. Although the State attempted to call Rash as a witness at trial, Rash was not allowed to testify because the State had failed to endorse his name as a witness upon the criminal information. The district court, in admitting the laboratory report into evidence, expressly conditioned its receipt on Rash's availability for cross-examination by Manke's counsel. Manke's counsel declined to call Rash for cross-examination. On Manke's direct appeal from his conviction, we upheld admission of the laboratory report under Rule 803(8), NDREv. State v. Manke, supra.

Post-conviction proceedings are governed by Chapter 29-32, NDCC, our codification of the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act. Section 29-32-08 provides:

"29-32-08. Waiver of or failure to assert claims.--All grounds for relief available to an applicant under this chapter must be raised in his original, supplemental, or amended application. Any ground finally adjudicated or not so raised, or knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted in the conviction or sentence or in any other proceeding the applicant has taken to secure relief may not be the basis for a subsequent application, unless...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Johnson v. State, No. 20030256 | 20030257
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • June 30, 2004
    ...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 post-conviction proceeding misuses the post-convicti......
  • State v. Willey, No. 1112
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • January 22, 1986
    ...reason" why the issue was inadequately raised or not asserted in the prior post-conviction proceeding. In State v. Manke, 361 N.W.2d 247 (N.D.1985), we further interpreted Section 29-32-08, N.D.C.C., to mean that issues finally adjudicated in a prior direct appeal are res judicata and ......
  • State v. Schmitz, Cr. N
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • November 10, 1988
    ...time on appeal. See, e.g., State v. Brown, 420 N.W.2d 5, 7 (N.D.1988); State v. Jones, 418 N.W.2d 782, 783 (N.D.1988); State v. Manke, 361 N.W.2d 247, 249 (N.D.1985); State v. Ronngren, 361 N.W.2d 224, 231 (N.D.1985). Furthermore because the issue of agency was not raised in the trial court......
  • State v. Haverluk, Cr. N
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • December 6, 1988
    ...time on appeal. See e.g., State v. Brown, 420 N.W.2d 5, 7 (N.D.1988); State v. Jones, 418 N.W.2d 782, 783 (N.D.1988); State v. Manke, 361 N.W.2d 247, 249 (N.D.1985); State v. Ronngren, 361 N.W.2d 224, 231 (N.D.1985). A limited exception to this general principle is set forth in Rule 52 of t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Johnson v. State, No. 20030256 | 20030257
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • June 30, 2004
    ...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 post-conviction proceeding misuses the post-convicti......
  • State v. Willey, No. 1112
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • January 22, 1986
    ..."sufficient reason" why the issue was inadequately raised or not asserted in the prior post-conviction proceeding. In State v. Manke, 361 N.W.2d 247 (N.D.1985), we further interpreted Section 29-32-08, N.D.C.C., to mean that issues finally adjudicated in a prior direct appeal are res judica......
  • State v. Schmitz, Cr. N
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • November 10, 1988
    ...time on appeal. See, e.g., State v. Brown, 420 N.W.2d 5, 7 (N.D.1988); State v. Jones, 418 N.W.2d 782, 783 (N.D.1988); State v. Manke, 361 N.W.2d 247, 249 (N.D.1985); State v. Ronngren, 361 N.W.2d 224, 231 (N.D.1985). Furthermore because the issue of agency was not raised in the trial court......
  • State v. Haverluk, Cr. N
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • December 6, 1988
    ...time on appeal. See e.g., State v. Brown, 420 N.W.2d 5, 7 (N.D.1988); State v. Jones, 418 N.W.2d 782, 783 (N.D.1988); State v. Manke, 361 N.W.2d 247, 249 (N.D.1985); State v. Ronngren, 361 N.W.2d 224, 231 (N.D.1985). A limited exception to this general principle is set forth in Rule 52 of t......
  • 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