Hemmesch v. Bonebrake

2002 ND 168
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 5, 2002
Docket20020119
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2002 ND 168 (Hemmesch v. Bonebrake) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hemmesch v. Bonebrake, 2002 ND 168 (N.D. 2002).

Opinion

Filed 11/5/02 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2002 ND 166

Ambrose Joel Whiteman, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20020163

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Lawrence A. Leclerc, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Steven D. Mottinger (argued) and Douglas Nesheim (on brief), Fraase, Johnson, Ramstad & Mottinger, 15 9th Street South, Fargo, ND 58103-1830, for petitioner and appellant.

Wade L. Webb, Assistant State’s Attorney, Courthouse, P.O. Box 2806, Fargo, ND 58108-2806, for respondent and appellee.

Whiteman v. State

[¶1] Ambrose Joel Whiteman appealed a trial court judgment dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief.  On May 22, 1998, a jury convicted Whiteman of murder.  His trial attorney, Gordon Dexheimer, did not file a notice of appeal.  On June 25, 2001, Whiteman filed an application for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on his attorney’s failure to file a direct appeal.  The trial court summarily dismissed Whiteman’s petition.  On appeal, this Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, concluding Whiteman had raised genuine issues of material fact regarding his instructions to Dexheimer.   See Whiteman v. State , 2002 ND 77, ¶¶ 21-23, 643 N.W.2d 704.  After an evidentiary hearing on June 20, 2002, at which Dexheimer and Whiteman testified, the trial court found Dexheimer’s testimony more credible and determined Dexheimer followed Whiteman’s instructions to not file a direct appeal.

[¶2] We summarily affirm the trial court judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

William A. Neumann

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Whiteman v. State
2002 ND 166 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2002 ND 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hemmesch-v-bonebrake-nd-2002.