[¶1] James Thompson appealed from an order granting summary dismissal of his application for post-conviction relief and an order dismissing his application due to the statute of limitations. On November 16, 2020, Thompson filed a petition to vacate the criminal judgment and his sentence. The district court treated the petition as an application for post-conviction relief. The court found Thompson argued the State “must file a bond and deliver a bond” and “failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.”
[¶2] On November 25, 2020, the State filed a motion for summary dismissal under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09(3), claiming Thompsons arguments were “nonsensical and unsupported.” The State also filed a motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations expiring under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(2) that same day. Thompson never filed a response to the States motions. The district court granted the States motions and filed orders dismissing Thompsons application on January 6, 2021.
[¶3] The district court did not err when it dismissed Thompsons application for post-conviction relief, and we summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). See Chatman v. State, 2018 ND 77, ¶ 11, 908 N.W.2d 724 (“[P]ost-conviction relief is not a device for investigating possible claims, but a means for vindicating actual claims.” (quoting Davis v. State, 2013 ND 34, ¶ 15, 827 N.W.2d 8)); Friesz v. State, 2021 ND 37, ¶ 6, 956 N.W.2d 338 (explaining a post-conviction relief applicant has a fourteen-day window under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 to respond to the States request for dismissal of the application).
Per Curiam.
[¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Gerald W. VandeWalle
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte