FRIESZ v. STATE (2026)

[¶1] Rodney Harold Friesz appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his application for postconviction relief on summary disposition. We summarily affirm.

[¶2] “Postconviction relief proceedings are civil in nature and governed by the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure to the extent the rules do not conflict with the Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 29-32.1.” Hoff v. State, 2024 ND 235, ¶ 13, 14 N.W.3d 892. This Court reviews a summary denial of postconviction relief as it reviews an appeal from a summary judgment. Friesz v. State, 2022 ND 22, ¶ 7, 969 N.W.2d 465. “The court may grant a motion by either party for summary disposition if the application, pleadings, any previous proceeding, discovery, or other matters of record show that no genuine issues exist as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09.1(1).

[¶3] The applicant carries the burden of establishing grounds for postconviction relief. Atkins v. State, 2017 ND 290, ¶ 6, 904 N.W.2d 738. “Once the State moves for summary disposition pointing out the absence of supporting evidence, the defendant is put on notice of the issue and a minimal burden shifts to the defendant to provide some competent evidence to support his claim.” Conica v. State, 2026 ND 74, ¶ 2, 33 N.W.3d 787 (quoting Kraft v. State, 2025 ND 155, ¶ 9, 25 N.W.3d 777). Failure to produce that evidence once the burden shifts “is grounds for summary dismissal.” Atkins, ¶ 10. “This Court reviews a district court's grant of summary disposition under the de novo standard.” Conica, ¶ 2.

[¶4] Friesz's application alleged, as newly discovered evidence, an updated confession by Chris Barrett. The application, however, set forth no facts establishing when the alleged confession occurred, what Barrett allegedly said, how Friesz obtained or learned of the purported confession, or how Barrett's purported updated confession to Barrett committing robbery connects to Friesz's manslaughter and arson convictions. Although Friesz's application indicated “Chris Barret[t]’s confession to the robbery” was attached, no such document was attached to the application. Friesz did not supplement his application with an affidavit from him or anyone else, a transcript or recording of the claimed confession, or any other information or document presenting competent, admissible evidence that raised a genuine issue of material fact.

[¶5] Friesz's application failed to present competent, admissible evidence that raised a genuine issue of material fact. He also failed to respond to the State's motion for summary disposition by providing competent evidence to support his claim. We summarily affirm the district court's judgment granting the State's motion for summary disposition under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6). See Rangel v. State, 2026 ND 3, ¶ 3, 30 N.W.3d 343 (summarily affirming district court's order granting the State's motion for summary disposition when the applications failed to present competent, admissible evidence and the applicant failed to respond to the State's motion with competent evidence to support his claim); Kratz v. State, 2022 ND 188, ¶ 17, 981 N.W.2d 891 (“Because Kratz failed to provide any evidentiary support for his application, we cannot conclude the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the two specific claims raised in the application.”). Because Friesz failed to meet his minimal burden on summary disposition, we need not address his remaining arguments.

Per Curiam.

[¶6] Lisa Fair McEvers, C.J. Jerod E. Tufte Jon J. Jensen Douglas A. Bahr Mark A. Friese