Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 06-10-2022
Case Style:
Garron Gonzalez v. State of North Dakota
Case Number: 2022 ND 117
Judge:
Gerald VandeWalle
James S. Hill
Court:
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
On appeal from The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial
District
Plaintiff's Attorney: Julie A. Lawyer, State’s Attorney
Defendant's Attorney:
Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.
Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement
Counselor:
MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.
MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge
Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800
Description:
Bismarck, ND - Criminal Defense lawyer represented defendant appealing an order denying his motions and an order to show cause
Gonzalez argues the district court erred by denying his motion to
suspend judgment, amended motion to suspend judgment, motion for an order
to show cause, and amended motion for an order to show cause. Gonzalez
claimed in his motions that he received ineffective assistance of post-conviction
counsel because his attorney for his eighth application for post-conviction relief
did not communicate with him and did not file evidence supporting his
application. Gonzalez’s motions will be treated as another application for postconviction relief. See Atkins v. State, 2021 ND 34, ¶ 8, 955 N.W.2d 109 (stating
a motion for reconsideration relating to an underlying order denying postconviction relief may not be used to avoid statutory post-conviction procedures
and will be treated as another application for post-conviction relief). Gonzalez
is precluded from claiming ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel. See
N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09(2); Atkins, at ¶ 11. We conclude the district court did not
err in denying Gonzalez’s application for post-conviction relief, titled as
motions to suspend judgment and for an order to show cause. We summarily
affirm the orders under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
II
[¶3] Gonzalez also appeals from “the Findings and Order Declaring the
Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant in the above titled actions entered on the 3rd day
of February, 2022 in the District Court of Burleigh County, North Dakota, the
Honorable Bruce Romanick presiding.” The February 3, 2022 order declaring
plaintiff a vexatious litigant is a proposed pre-filing order.
2
[¶4] Under N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58(5), if the presiding judge finds that
there is a basis to conclude the person is a vexatious litigant and that a prefiling order should be issued, the judge must issue a proposed pre-filing order
along with proposed findings supporting the issuance of the pre-filing order.
N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58(5). After the proposed order is issued, the person
who would be designated as a vexatious litigant has 14 days to file a written
response. Id. A pre-filing order may be issued if there is no response after 14
days or if the presiding judge concludes following a response that there is a
basis for issuing the order. Id. A pre-filing order designating a person as a
vexatious litigant may be appealed. N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58(6); N.D.C.C. §
28-27-02.
[¶5] The February 3, 2022 order states it is a proposed order and Gonzalez
has 14 days to file a written response. Gonzalez filed the notice of appeal six
days after entry of the proposed order. A pre-filing order was never entered.
The proposed order is not appealable, and the appeal on this issue is dismissed.
Outcome: We summarily affirm the orders denying Gonzalez’s application for postconviction relief, titled as motions to suspend judgment and for an order to
show cause, under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). We dismiss Gonzalez’s appeal from
the proposed order to declare him a vexatious litigant.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: