Background
Chad Dennis Conica filed an application for postconviction relief in the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District. The State moved for summary dismissal and/or summary disposition of the application. District Court Judge Daniel J. Borgen granted the State’s motion, and Conica appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
On appeal, Conica argued that the district court erred by dismissing his postconviction relief application without first holding an evidentiary hearing. The specific grounds of his underlying application are not detailed in the opinion.
The Court’s Holding
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order granting summary disposition, issuing a per curiam opinion. The court applied the standard under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09.1(1), which permits summary disposition when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law — a standard analogous to summary judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 56.
The court found that Conica’s application failed to present competent, admissible evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact. Critically, Conica also failed to respond to the State’s motion for summary disposition with any competent evidence to support his claims. Because the minimal burden that shifts to a defendant upon the State’s motion was not met, the court summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6).
Key Takeaways
- Under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09.1, a postconviction relief application may be dismissed without an evidentiary hearing if there is no genuine issue of material fact — the same standard governing summary judgment.
- Once the State moves for summary disposition and identifies the absence of supporting evidence, the burden shifts to the defendant to produce at least some competent evidence in support of the application.
- A defendant’s failure to respond to a motion for summary disposition with competent, admissible evidence will result in dismissal, as no evidentiary hearing is required in the absence of a genuine factual dispute.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the procedural rigor required of postconviction petitioners in North Dakota. Bare applications unsupported by affidavits, testimony, or other competent evidence will not survive a State motion for summary disposition, and courts are not obligated to hold an evidentiary hearing when no genuine factual dispute has been raised.
Defense practitioners handling postconviction matters in North Dakota should treat a State motion for summary disposition as a trigger requiring a substantive evidentiary response. Silence or reliance on the application alone risks dismissal without any opportunity to be heard on the merits.