Filed 1/23/20 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2020 ND 1

Marcus Orlando Chatman, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20180425

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial 

District, the Honorable David E. Reich, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Steven Balaban, Bismarck, ND, for petitioner and appellant.

Tessa M. Vaagen, Assistant State’s Attorney, Bismarck, ND, for respondent 

and appellee.
1

Chatman v. State

No. 20180425

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Marcus Chatman appeals the summary dismissal of his post-conviction 

relief application, denial of his motion for relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60, and 

denial of his motion for reconsideration. We summarily affirm under 

N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6),(7).

[¶2] Chatman was convicted of possession of heroin with intent to deliver or 

manufacture, possession of cocaine, and possession of marijuana by a driver. 

This Court affirmed Chatman’s conviction and the dismissal of his first and 

second post-conviction relief applications. Chatman v. State, 2018 ND 77, 908 

N.W.2d 724; Chatman v. State, 2017 ND 12, 891 N.W.2d 778; State v. 

Chatman, 2015 ND 296, 872 N.W.2d 595. In July 2018, Chatman filed his 

third application for post-conviction relief. Chatman argued there was new 

evidence pertaining to a witness, the search warrant was invalid, his 

confession was involuntary, the State tampered with a witness, and his trial 

counsel was ineffective. The State moved for summary dismissal on the basis 

of res judicata and misuse of process. The district court summarily dismissed 

the application, stating the issues raised were or could have been raised 

previously. Chatman filed a motion for relief from judgment under 

N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b), again arguing the identity of the witness at issue in the

third application was newly discovered evidence. The motion was denied. 

Chatman then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. 

Chatman argues the district court improperly dismissed his application for 

post-conviction relief, his motion for relief from judgment, and his motion for 

reconsideration without giving him a hearing.

[¶3] The district court did not err by summarily denying Chatman’s 

application for post-conviction relief. Chatman’s claims were barred by res 

judicata. See also Chatman, 2018 ND 77, ¶ 9, 908 N.W.2d 724 (considering 

Chatman’s videotaped confession to the charges and the lack of an affidavit or 

other evidence from the witness to establish the substance of her testimony, 

an evidentiary hearing is not required). The court did not err in denying his 
2

motion for relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60, and his motion for reconsideration. 

See State v. Atkins, 2019 ND 145, ¶¶ 10-11, 928 N.W.2d 441 (stating the 

Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act is to be used exclusively to challenge a 

judgment of conviction, and regardless of the title on a motion it will be treated 

as a subsequent application for post-conviction relief). We summarily affirm 

under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6),(7). 

[¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. 

 Lisa Fair McEvers

 Gerald W. VandeWalle

 Daniel J. Crothers

 Jerod E. Tufte