Bridges v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT APRIL 14, 2022 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2022 ND 82 John Clark Bridges, Petitioner and Appellant v. State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee Nos. 20210351 & 20210352 Appeals from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick, Judge. AFFIRMED. Per Curiam. Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, N.D., for petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief. Tessa M. Vaagen, Assistant State’s Attorney, Bismarck, N.D., for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief. Bridges v. State Nos. 20210351 & 20210352 Per Curiam. [¶1] John Bridges appeals from district court orders summarily dismissing his applications for postconviction relief as untimely and for lack of a genuine issue of material fact. Bridges argues he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing because there were genuine issues of material fact regarding his claims of newly discovered evidence. We conclude that Bridges’ applications for postconviction relief were not filed within the two-year statute of limitations under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(2). We further conclude he has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact of newly discovered evidence, which if proved and reviewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would establish that he did not engage in the criminal conduct for which he was convicted. See N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(3)(a)(1); Johnson v. State, 2015 ND 7, ¶ 7, 858 N.W.2d 632. Accordingly, we summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7). [¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte 1
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
