AYALA v. STATE, 2014 ND 204 (2014)
Court: Supreme Court of North Dakota
Number: inndco20141112369
Visitors: 18
Filed: Nov. 12, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 12, 2014
Summary: PER CURIAM. [ 1] Cassondra Ann Ayala appeals a district court order granting the State's motion for summary dismissal of Ayala's application for postconviction relief. Ayala argues the district court erred because she was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to challenge her conviction. The State argues dismissal was proper because Ayala failed to respond with competent admissible evidence after the State made a motion for summary dismissal. We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). See Ude v. St
Summary: PER CURIAM. [ 1] Cassondra Ann Ayala appeals a district court order granting the State's motion for summary dismissal of Ayala's application for postconviction relief. Ayala argues the district court erred because she was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to challenge her conviction. The State argues dismissal was proper because Ayala failed to respond with competent admissible evidence after the State made a motion for summary dismissal. We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). See Ude v. Sta..
More
PER CURIAM.
[¶1] Cassondra Ann Ayala appeals a district court order granting the State's motion for summary dismissal of Ayala's application for postconviction relief. Ayala argues the district court erred because she was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to challenge her conviction. The State argues dismissal was proper because Ayala failed to respond with competent admissible evidence after the State made a motion for summary dismissal. We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). See Ude v. State, 2009 ND 71, ¶ 8, 764 N.W.2d 419 (explaining once petitioner is put on his proof, he must provide competent admissible evidence that raises an issue of material fact before he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing); Delvo v. State, 2010 ND 78, ¶ 13, 782 N.W.2d 72 (affirming the district court's summary dismissal of Delvo's application for postconviction relief because, after the State moved for summary judgment and Delvo was put to her burden of proof, she did not supplement her application); Dunn v. State, 2006 ND 26, ¶¶ 11-12, 709 N.W.2d 1 (affirming the district court's summary dismissal of Dunn's application for postconviction relief because, after the State moved for summary dismissal and Dunn was put to his burden of proof, he failed to appropriately respond).
[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J., Daniel J. Crothers, Lisa Fair McEvers, Carol Ronning Kapsner, Dale V. Sandstrom.
Source: Leagle
