Background
Rodney Harold Friesz, previously convicted of manslaughter and arson in Morton County, filed an application for postconviction relief in the district court, claiming newly discovered evidence in the form of an updated confession by a man named Chris Barrett. Friesz alleged that Barrett had confessed to committing the robbery underlying the case, but the application provided no specifics: no date for the confession, no description of what Barrett said, no explanation of how Friesz learned of it, and no account of how a robbery confession would connect to his manslaughter and arson convictions.
Though the application represented that a copy of Barrett’s confession was attached, no such document was included. Friesz did not supplement his filing with an affidavit, a transcript or recording of the alleged confession, or any other competent, admissible evidence. The State moved for summary disposition, and the district court granted the motion and dismissed the application. Friesz appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
The Court’s Holding
The North Dakota Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the district court’s summary dismissal in a per curiam opinion. The court applied a de novo standard of review and noted that postconviction proceedings are civil in nature, governed by the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure where they do not conflict with the Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act. Summary disposition is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09.1(1).
Once the State moved for summary disposition and pointed to the absence of supporting evidence, a minimal burden shifted to Friesz to produce competent evidence supporting his claim. The court found he failed to meet even that minimal burden. His application was entirely unsupported — no confession document, no affidavit, no transcript — and he did not respond to the State’s motion with any evidentiary support. Because he failed to meet his burden, the court declined to address his remaining arguments and affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6).
Key Takeaways
- In North Dakota postconviction proceedings, once the State moves for summary disposition identifying the absence of supporting evidence, the applicant bears a minimal but real burden to produce competent, admissible evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact.
- An application asserting newly discovered evidence that omits basic details — timing, substance, source, and relevance of the alleged evidence — and attaches no supporting documents will not survive summary disposition.
- Failure to respond to a State’s motion for summary disposition with competent evidence is itself an independent ground for dismissal.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the procedural rigor North Dakota courts apply to postconviction relief applications, making clear that bare allegations of newly discovered evidence, without evidentiary substance, cannot survive summary disposition. Attorneys advising clients on postconviction applications in North Dakota must ensure the initial filing — or a timely supplement — includes actual documentation such as affidavits, recordings, or transcripts, not merely assertions that evidence exists.
The opinion also illustrates the practical consequence of failing to respond to a State’s summary disposition motion: silence or inaction, even in the absence of an outright deficient application, is grounds for dismissal on its own. Counsel must treat a State’s motion for summary disposition as a genuine litigation event requiring a substantive, evidence-backed response.