Court Opinion

ID: 9925600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-22 15:05:49.159002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:17.584724
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                        IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                     CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                          JANUARY 22, 2024
                                                                      STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                 IN THE SUPREME COURT
                 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                2024 ND 11

Michaelson Plaisimond,                              Petitioner and Appellant
     v.
State of North Dakota,                              Respondent and Appellee

                               No. 20230252

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial
District, the Honorable Bonnie L. Storbakken, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Justin M. Balzer, Bismarck, ND, for petitioner and appellant; submitted on
brief.

Julie A. Lawyer, State’s Attorney, Bismarck, ND, for respondent and appellee;
submitted on brief.
                             Plaisimond v. State
                                No. 20230252

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Michaelson Plaisimond appeals from an order denying his second
application for postconviction relief after the district court found his
application to be a misuse of process. Under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-12(2)(a), a court
may deny postconviction relief as a misuse of process when the applicant
“[p]resents a claim for relief which the applicant inexcusably failed to raise
either in a proceeding leading to judgment of conviction and sentence or in a
previous postconviction proceeding.” State v. Atkins, 2019 ND 145, ¶ 13, 928
N.W.2d 441. The court found the claims raised by Plaisimond in his second
postconviction relief were discoverable to him prior to his first application and
he inexcusably failed to raise the claims at that time. The court’s dismissal of
Plaisimond’s application for misuse of process was not clearly erroneous. We
summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
     Daniel J. Crothers
     Lisa Fair McEvers
     Jerod E. Tufte
     Douglas A. Bahr

                                       1