CRAIG v. STATE (2026)

[¶1] Russell Frank Craig appeals from a district court judgment denying his application for postconviction relief. On appeal, Craig argues the district court erred by finding his claims are barred by the statute of limitations, res judicata, and misuse of process. We have previously reviewed appeals by Craig resulting from the same underlying criminal proceedings. See State v. Craig, 2019 ND 123, 927 N.W.2d 99 (appeal from motion to withdraw plea); State v. Craig, 2020 ND 80, 941 N.W.2d 539 (appeal from motion to withdraw after remand and hearing); Craig v. State, 2021 ND 204, 966 N.W.2d 569 (appeal from dismissal of second application for postconviction relief).

[¶2] We conclude the district court did not err by denying Craig's application for postconviction relief because his claims are barred by the statute of limitations. See N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(2) (“Except as provided in [29-32.1-01(3)], an application for relief under this chapter must be filed within two years of the date the conviction becomes final.”); Bridges v. State, 2022 ND 147, ¶ 22, 977 N.W.2d 718 (explaining exception to statute of limitations under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(3)(a)(3) does not apply when applicant fails to “assert a new interpretation of law” or cite an appellate court's new interpretation of law). After review of the record, and having previously reviewed the same or similar claims that were raised or could have been raised in his prior appeals, we further conclude the court did not err in denying Craig's third application for postconviction relief because his claims are res judicata and misuse of process. See N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-12(1) (“An application for postconviction relief may be denied on the ground that the same claim or claims were fully and finally determined in a previous proceeding.”); N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-12(2) (“A court may deny relief on the ground of misuse of process. Process is misused when the applicant ․ [p]resents a claim for relief which the applicant inexcusably failed to raise either in a proceeding leading to judgment of conviction and sentence or in a previous postconviction proceeding[.]”); see also Craig, 2021 ND 204, ¶ 11 (concluding Craig's second application for postconviction relief was barred by res judicata because he could have raised these claims in his previous postconviction action but did not do so). We summarily affirm the district court judgment denying Craig's application for postconviction relief under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Per Curiam.

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