Court Opinion

ID: 9896060
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 15:08:14.147784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:03.859385
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                     IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                  CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                      SEPTEMBER 28, 2023
                                                                   STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                 IN THE SUPREME COURT
                 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                              2023 ND 179

Robert Michael Williamson,                       Petitioner and Appellant
     v.
State of North Dakota,                           Respondent and Appellee

                              No. 20230069

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial
District, the Honorable James S. Hill, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, N.D., for petitioner and appellant;
submitted on brief.

David L. Rappenecker, Assistant State’s Attorney, Bismarck, N.D., for
respondent and appellee; submitted on brief.
                             Williamson v. State
                                No. 20230069

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Robert Michael Williamson appeals from an order denying his
application for postconviction relief. He argues the district court abused its
discretion by not permitting confidential attorney-client communication
during his telephonic hearing. Williamson also requests correction of the
record.1 We summarily affirm the order denying his application for
postconviction relief, and deny the request to correct the record.

[¶2] Williamson argues the district court erred by not allowing him to have
“appropriate confidential attorney-client communication” during his
telephonic hearing. The parties stipulated to telephonic or electronic
appearance. During the hearing, Williamson and his attorney conferred in a
private electronic chat room. The district court has broad discretion over the
progress and conduct of a trial or hearing. Schrodt v. Schrodt, 2022 ND 64, ¶ 8,
971 N.W.2d 861. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

[¶3] Williamson also requests this Court correct the record pursuant to
N.D.R.App.P. 10(h) and 27. Williamson moved the district court to correct the
record, arguing the transcript contains two errors. The district court “listened
to the recording of the proceedings” and denied the motion. “[T]he abuse of
discretion standard of review applies to a district court decision on a motion to
correct the record under N.D.R.App.P. 10(h)(2).” Rogers v. State, 2017 ND 271,
¶ 13, 903 N.W.2d 730; see also Waldie v. Waldie, 2008 ND 97, ¶ 11, 748 N.W.2d
683 (“When a district court may do something, it is generally a matter of
discretion.”). After reviewing the recording and the transcript, we conclude the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion because the
transcript accurately reflects the audio recording. The request to this Court to
correct the record is denied for the same reason.

1Williamson’s claim regarding an illegal sentence will be addressed in his direct
appeal. See Case No. 20230205.

                                       1
[¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
     Daniel J. Crothers
     Lisa Fair McEvers
     Jerod E. Tufte
     Douglas A. Bahr

                           2