Bertram v. State

[Go to Documents]Filed Feb. 21, 2008[Download as WordPerfect]IN THE SUPREME COURTSTATE OF NORTH DAKOTA2008 ND 24

Randy L. Bertram, Petitioner and Appellant
v.
State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20070176

Appeal from the District Court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Gary H. Lee, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Randy Bertram (pro se), P.O. Box 5521, Bismarck, N.D. 58506-5521.
Nicole E. Foster, State's Attorney, P.O. Box 2047, Williston, N.D. 58802-2047, for respondent and appellee.

Bertram v. State
No. 20070176

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Randy Bertram appeals from a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. Bertram was convicted of criminal trespass, violation of a disorderly conduct restraining order, and contact by bodily fluids. Bertram appealed these convictions, and we affirmed, rejecting his argument that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain his trespass conviction. State v. Bertram, 2006 ND 10, 708 N.W.2d 913. Bertram applied for post-conviction relief, arguing there was insufficient evidence to sustain his trespassing conviction, the disorderly conduct restraining order is void and the district court erred in concluding he could not collaterally attack the order, and his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective. The district court summarily dismissed Bertram's application, concluding the issue of whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the trespassing conviction had already been decided and his claims were res judicata, the court could not review the validity of the restraining order in an unrelated matter, and there was no evidence from which the court could conclude there was ineffective assistance of counsel because Bertram waived his right to present any evidence on the issue.

[¶2] We summarily affirm the dismissal of Bertram's application for post-conviction relief under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (6), and (7); Bertram, 2006 ND 10, ¶ 11, 708 N.W.2d 913 (evidence was sufficient to sustain trespass conviction); Steen v. State, 2007 ND 123, ¶ 13, 736 N.W.2d 457 (res judicata precludes claims or variations of claims raised in previous proceedings).

[¶3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Dale V. Sandstrom
Daniel J. Crothers
Mary Muehlen Maring