The sentencing of Shawnee Krall for the murder of Alice Queirolo has been moved up by district court Judge Stacy Louser due to Krall continuing to refuse to cooperate with the presentence investigation.

Krall was found guilty after a jury trial in Dickinson on Aug. 2, and was scheduled for sentencing on Feb. 18, 2025, following a presentence investigation (PSI).

According to court documents and statements made by Parole and Probation Officer Kayla Haugeberg at a hearing on Aug. 16, Krall refused to sign a release of information to begin the PSI and informed the officers involved he would not be participating in any aspect of the process.

Krall stated at the hearing that he believed his due process rights had been violated, that the verdict was illegal and his participation in the PSI would be harmful to his case. He also stated he intended to appeal his verdict but was reminded by Louser that sentencing must occur before an appeal can be pursued.

Louser gave Krall a week to come to a decision regarding his participation and scheduled a tentative sentencing date of Sept. 30 should he elect not to.

According to a letter to the court from Haugeberg filed on Aug. 23, Hugeberg met with Krall at the Ward County Jail to discuss the PSI, where he stated he, “could not make a definitive decision,” as he didn’t have access to the legal library to research the PSI process and other available options.

Louser ultimately ordered to move forward with the Sept. 30 sentencing date on Aug. 28. Louser noted Krall had a history of refusing to cooperate with similar evaluation orders in the past, and to comply with various other aspects of the criminal case including waivers of extradition and amended bail orders. Due to these factors, Louser found there was a compelling need to have sentencing completed as soon as possible and that Krall has had ample opportunity to discuss the issues and ramifications with his attorney.

Krall has filed a notice of appeal with the North Dakota Supreme Court, requesting relief due to ineffective assistance of counsel. In a handwritten request, Krall faulted his court-appointed attorney Stormy Vickers for not investigating a witness who testified at the trial and failing to prepare rebuttal witnesses he had requested. Krall also alleged judicial error in his appeal due to his requests to remove Vickers as his representation twice before the trial and again following the verdict.

For his part, Vickers has filed a motion to withdraw as Krall’s attorney, citing his client’s persistent requests to terminate him as representation which Louser has repeatedly denied. Vickers said he believed one or more of the required provisions applies and would disclose additional information if ordered to by the court in an in camera ex parte hearing. A motion hearing regarding Vicker’s request to withdraw has been scheduled for Sept. 24.