Norman v. State

2016 ND 112
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedJune 8, 2016
Docket20150298
StatusPublished

This text of 2016 ND 112 (Norman v. State) 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
Norman v. State, 2016 ND 112 (N.D. 2016).

Opinion

Filed 6/8/16 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2016 ND 112

James Norman, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20150298

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Gail Hagerty, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Samuel A. Gereszek, P.O. Box 4, East Grand Forks, Minn. 56721-0004, for petitioner and appellant.

Julie A. Lawyer, Assistant State’s Attorney, 514 East Thayer Avenue, Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for respondent and appellee.

Norman v. State

[¶1] James Norman appealed from district court orders denying his application for post-conviction relief.  In 1992, a jury found Norman guilty of class AA felony murder, and his judgment of conviction was affirmed on appeal.   State v. Norman , 507 N.W.2d 522 (N.D. 1993).  In July 2013, Norman applied for post-conviction relief, claiming grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, abuse of discretion, use of coerced confession, and discovery violations.  The district court granted the State partial summary disposition and held an evidentiary hearing on the remaining issues of ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence.  The court subsequently denied his post-conviction relief application.

[¶2] On appeal, Norman argues the district court erred in finding he failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel and erred in partially granting the State’s motion for summary disposition, limiting his grounds for relief.  Norman also filed a supplemental statement raising numerous additional issues.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (6), and (7); Klose v. State , 2008 ND 143, ¶ 10, 752 N.W.2d 192 (res judicata precludes claims or variations of claims raised in previous proceedings, and misuse of process precludes claims that could have been raised in a prior post-conviction proceeding or other proceeding).

[¶3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Lisa Fair McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers

Jay A. Schmitz, D.J.

[¶4] The Honorable Jay A. Schmitz, D.J., sitting in place of Sandstrom, J., disqualified.

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

Related

Klose v. State
2008 ND 143 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2008)
State v. Norman
507 N.W.2d 522 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2016 ND 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norman-v-state-nd-2016.