State v. Willey, No. 1112

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
Writing for the CourtVANDE WALLE; ERICKSTAD
Citation381 N.W.2d 183
PartiesSTATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Darcey WILLEY, Defendant and Appellant. Crim.
Decision Date22 January 1986
Docket NumberNo. 1112

Page 183

381 N.W.2d 183
STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
Darcey WILLEY, Defendant and Appellant.
Crim. No. 1112.
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Jan. 22, 1986.

Page 184

Wendy P. Schulz, Asst. State's Atty., Jamestown, for plaintiff and appellee; argued by Charles J. Gilje, State's Atty.

Thomas E. Merrick of Hjellum, Weiss, Nerison, Jukkala, Wright & Paulson, Jamestown, for defendant and appellant.

VANDE WALLE, Justice.

Darcey Willey appealed from a district court order dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

During July 1983, Willey, at that time a 17-year-old juvenile, was arrested in Utah. After being informed of his Miranda rights by Utah authorities, Willey confessed to armed robberies in Utah, Minnesota, and Jamestown, North Dakota. Willey was not represented by counsel, nor were his parents present during questioning.

Willey pleaded guilty to the Utah charge and he was sentenced to the Utah State Prison. Utah authorities notified Jamestown authorities about Willey's confession and a criminal complaint was filed in Stutsman County Court. Willey filed a request under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act, and he was transferred to Stutsman County Juvenile Court. Counsel was appointed for Willey. At a subsequent juvenile court transfer-of-jurisdiction hearing, Willey's statements obtained in Utah implicating him in the Jamestown robbery were admitted in evidence over his counsel's objections that they were in violation of Section 27-20-27, N.D.C.C. The juvenile court ultimately transferred jurisdiction to adult court, and Willey did not attempt an appeal to this court from the order terminating the juvenile court's jurisdiction. Willey pleaded guilty in adult court to robbery and he was sentenced to three years in the North Dakota State Penitentiary, to be served consecutively to his Utah sentence. Willey did not appeal from the criminal judgment.

Several months later, Willey filed an application for post-conviction relief claiming that the use of his Utah confession as evidence in the juvenile court transfer hearing violated Sections 27-20-26 and 27-20-27, N.D.C.C., and that the subsequent criminal judgment is consequently void for lack of jurisdiction. The State essentially asserted that Willey's failure to pursue this issue by direct appeal precluded relitigation of the issue in an application for post-conviction relief. The district court dismissed the application on the ground that the question raised by Willey had been finally adjudicated by the juvenile court and therefore could not be used as a basis for post-conviction relief. This appeal followed.

Post-conviction proceedings are governed by Chapter 29-32, N.D.C.C., our codification of the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act of 1966. 1 Section 29-32-01(2), N.D.C.C. [Section 1(b) of the Uniform Act], provides in part that the post-conviction relief remedy "is not a substitute for ... direct review of the sentence or conviction." Section 29-32-08, N.D.C.C. [Section 8 of the Uniform Act], further 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

Page 185

basis for a subsequent application, unless the court finds a ground for relief asserted which for sufficient reason was not asserted or was inadequately raised in the original, supplemental, or amended application."

In State v. Lueder, 267 N.W.2d 555 (N.D.1978), this court held that under Section 29-32-08, N.D.C.C., any issue finally adjudicated in a prior post-conviction proceeding, or any issue that could have been raised in the prior proceeding, cannot be asserted in a subsequent proceeding under Chapter 29-32, N.D.C.C., unless the court finds "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 judicata and cannot be raised in a subsequent post-conviction proceeding. The instant case presents the question whether the failure to take a direct appeal precludes assertion of an issue in a post-conviction proceeding that was raised and litigated in the proceedings leading to the defendant's conviction.

A uniform law should be construed to effectuate its general purpose and "to make uniform the law of those states which enact it." Section 1-02-13, N.D.C.C. In Redding v. State, 274 N.W.2d 315 (Iowa 1979), the Supreme Court of Iowa differentiated between situations where an applicant for post-conviction relief has previously sought review of his conviction either by direct appeal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Owens v. State, Nos. 970193
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • May 20, 1998
    ...in the trial court or direct review of the judgment of conviction or sentence in an appellate court...." ¶46 In State v. Willey, 381 N.W.2d 183, 186 (N.D.1986), this Court, construing former N.D.C.C. §§ 29-32-01 and 29-32-08, which are substantially similar to current N.D.C.C. §§ 29-32.1-01......
  • Steinbach v. State, No. 20020322.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • March 26, 2003
    ...fails to pursue an issue on appeal which was raised and litigated in the original trial court proceedings, see, e.g., State v. Willey [,] 381 N.W.2d 183 (N.D.1986); and finally, (3) if a defendant inexcusably fails to raise an issue in an initial post-conviction application, see, e.g., Silv......
  • Clark v. State, No. 980303
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • April 27, 1999
    ...to be compelling precedent. In fact, our prior decisions addressing misuse of process follow a similar framework. ¶16 In State v. Willey, 381 N.W.2d 183 (N.D.1986), we [F]ailure to take a direct appeal bars relief in a post-conviction action under Chapter 29-32, N.D.C.C., on the ground of a......
  • Voisine v. State, No. 20070313.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • May 15, 2008
    ...deliberately or inexcusably failed to pursue on direct appeal. Clark v. State, 1999 ND 78, ¶ 16, 593 N.W.2d 329 (quoting State v. Willey, 381 N.W.2d 183, 186 (N.D.1986)) (alteration in original). Voisine did not take a direct appeal from the order revoking his probation. In this regard, his......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Owens v. State, Nos. 970193
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • May 20, 1998
    ...in the trial court or direct review of the judgment of conviction or sentence in an appellate court...." ¶46 In State v. Willey, 381 N.W.2d 183, 186 (N.D.1986), this Court, construing former N.D.C.C. §§ 29-32-01 and 29-32-08, which are substantially similar to current N.D.C.C. §§ 29-32.1-01......
  • Steinbach v. State, No. 20020322.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • March 26, 2003
    ...fails to pursue an issue on appeal which was raised and litigated in the original trial court proceedings, see, e.g., State v. Willey [,] 381 N.W.2d 183 (N.D.1986); and finally, (3) if a defendant inexcusably fails to raise an issue in an initial post-conviction application, see, e.g., Silv......
  • Clark v. State, No. 980303
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • April 27, 1999
    ...to be compelling precedent. In fact, our prior decisions addressing misuse of process follow a similar framework. ¶16 In State v. Willey, 381 N.W.2d 183 (N.D.1986), we [F]ailure to take a direct appeal bars relief in a post-conviction action under Chapter 29-32, N.D.C.C., on the ground of a......
  • Voisine v. State, No. 20070313.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • May 15, 2008
    ...deliberately or inexcusably failed to pursue on direct appeal. Clark v. State, 1999 ND 78, ¶ 16, 593 N.W.2d 329 (quoting State v. Willey, 381 N.W.2d 183, 186 (N.D.1986)) (alteration in original). Voisine did not take a direct appeal from the order revoking his probation. In this regard, his......
  • 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