Plaisimond v. State
Opinion
FILED
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
JANUARY 22, 2024
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2024 ND 11
Michaelson Plaisimond, Petitioner and Appellant v.
State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
No. 20230252
Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bonnie L. Storbakken, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Justin M. Balzer, Bismarck, ND, for petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief.
Julie A. Lawyer, State’s Attorney, Bismarck, ND, for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief.
Plaisimond v. State
No. 20230252
Per Curiam.
[¶1] Michaelson Plaisimond appeals from an order denying his second application for postconviction relief after the district court found his application to be a misuse of process. Under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-12(2)(a), a court may deny postconviction relief as a misuse of process when the applicant “[p]resents a claim for relief which the applicant inexcusably failed to raise either in a proceeding leading to judgment of conviction and sentence or in a previous postconviction proceeding.” State v. Atkins, 2019 ND 145, ¶ 13, 928 N.W.2d 441. The court found the claims raised by Plaisimond in his second postconviction relief were discoverable to him prior to his first application and he inexcusably failed to raise the claims at that time. The court’s dismissal of Plaisimond’s application for misuse of process was not clearly erroneous. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7).
[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2024 ND 11 (Plaisimond v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.