A Montana semitrailer driver found guilty of two counts of negligent homicide for a fatal 2018 crash near New Town has filed an appeal in U.S. District Court.

Douglas Landis, 69, Dagmar, Montana, was charged following a crash involving his semi and another vehicle on the business loop near New Town on Oct. 5, 2018, which resulted in the deaths of David Everett Wilcox, 28, Tempe, Arizona, and Taylor Ann Denny, 22, Phoenix, Arizona.

According to the North Dakota Highway Patrol, Landis lost control on the snow-covered road as he was negotiating a curve, and crossed the centerline, striking the westbound pickup driven by Wilcox head on.

Landis was found guilty by a Mountrail County jury after a trial in North Central District Court in August 2020. He was sentenced in November 2020 by District Judge Richard Hagar to serve 18 months of a three-year sentence with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and to complete three years of supervised probation.

Landis filed habeus corpus petitions to the North Dakota Supreme Court in 2021 and 2023, seeking to have the convictions thrown out on the grounds he had received ineffective counsel.

He claims judicial error and prosecutorial misconduct occurred during his trial. The state Supreme Court dismissed the appeals in May 2022 and in February 2024 on the grounds he had not exhausted state court remedies prior to initiating the actions and failure to present competent and admissible evidence in support of his claims.

Landis filed his latest federal appeal in the U.S. District Court’s Eighth District on Feb. 28, seeking either the dismissal of his convictions or an evidentiary hearing to review his claims. Landis filed the petition on his own behalf, asserting actual innocence and constitutional violations.

According to the petition and other filings, Landis claims he was driving with regard for human life as he negotiated the curve at 35-40 mph due to an active blizzard and snow-covered roads. According to the North Dakota Highway Patrol’s accident report, Landis was cited for driving “too fast for conditions.”

The Highway Patrol’s accident report showed the speed of Wilcox’s vehicle was not known, but neither he nor Denny were actually wearing their seat belts despite the Bosch report showing they were engaged.

However, the field report authored by Trooper Christa Kovarik indicated Wilcox’s truck’s tachometer read 2,400 rpm with the cruise control activated, which Landis asserts shows Wilcox was driving at about 75 mph.

Landis also cited a toxicology report finding Wilcox was under the influence of marijuana at the time of the crash, and there was evidence of drug paraphernalia in the vehicle was not presented to the jury at the trial.

Landis’s petition challenges testimony at trial by Kovarik, claiming she committed perjury with her testimony regarding the point of impact in the crash. Landis claimed Kovarik had contradicted prior testimony from a pretrial deposition that the point of impact could not be determined, and her alleged perjured testimony was used to establish he had crossed the centerline.

Landis alleges prosecutorial and judicial misconduct stems from Mountrail County State’s Attorney Wade Enget’s alleged failure to correct Kovarik’s alleged perjury, and his presentation of prejudicial evidence to the jury related to Landis’s logged miles driven in the 26 hours before the accident.

Landis asserts his miles traveled were within the legal limits under Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regulations as a short haul oil industry operator and the evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial. Hagar had ruled to allow the admission of the driving hours evidence, which Landis claims was heavily relied on to secure his conviction.

Landis asserts his counsel in district court and his prior appeals failed to raise these issues, resulting in ineffective assistance of counsel.

North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley filed a brief in response to Landis’s petition on April 29, acknowledging the habeas corpus petition was valid in that Landis is considered “in-custody,” as required due to still being on probation following his release until Feb. 14, 2025.

Apart from another response from DOCR Director Dave Krabbenhoft on April 29 agreeing that Landis meets the “in-custody” requirement, no other filings have been made in the 60-day window to refute the facts asserted in Landis’s petition, which expired on July 8.

Landis filed a motion for summary judgment on July 10, saying the state admitted to all facts, supporting evidence of record and laws in his petition in failing to file a response to refute them.

“In sum, the undisputed facts of the record underlying Landis’ petition, viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, are sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for the above said Constitutional error(s), it is highly probable, substantially, more likely than not, no reasonable juror would have found Landis guilty,” Landis’ motion concluded.

Krabbenhoft has not yet filed a response to the motion.