Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pederson v. State

Supreme Court of North Dakota

March 19, 2015

Tate A. Pederson, Petitioner and Appellant
v.
State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Douglas R. Herman, Judge.

Lee M. Grossman, Valley City, ND, for petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief.

Reid A. Brady, Assistant State's Attorney, Fargo, ND, for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief.

Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J., Lisa Fair McEvers, Daniel J. Crothers, Dale V. Sandstrom, Carol Ronning Kapsner.

OPINION

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Tate Allister Pederson appealed from a district court order dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Pederson argues the district court abused its discretion when dismissing his application for post-conviction relief with prejudice. In Pederson's application for post-conviction relief, he alleged newly discovered evidence exists. At the hearing on Pederson's application for post-conviction relief, Pederson agreed to a dismissal of the application with prejudice. The district court discussed the significance of a dismissal with prejudice with Pederson to ensure he understood the consequences, noting he could not bring the same particular allegations regarding newly discovered evidence in future post-conviction proceedings. The district court was satisfied Pederson understood the effect of a dismissal with prejudice, before dismissing Pederson's application for post-conviction relief with prejudice.

[¶2] We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the claims Pederson raised in his application for post-conviction relief with prejudice because Pederson consented to the dismissal with prejudice and indicated he understood the effect. Generally, a petitioner cannot bring the same post-conviction relief claim more than once and is barred from bringing claims that could have been raised previously. See Jensen v. State, 2004 ND 200, ¶ 9, 688 N.W.2d 374. We affirm the district court's dismissal with prejudice under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

[¶3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J., Lisa Fair McEvers, Daniel J. Crothers, Dale V. Sandstrom, Carol Ronning Kapsner.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.