BRIDGES v. STATE (2022)

[¶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).

Per Curiam.

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte