THORSON v. STATE, 2014 ND 213 (2014)
Court: Supreme Court of North Dakota
Number: inndco20141218725
Visitors: 1
Filed: Dec. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2014
Summary: PER CURIAM. [ 1] David L. Thorson appeals from a district court order denying his application for postconviction relief. Thorson argues the district court erred in finding representation of his attorneys at trial and at his first postconviction relief proceeding, respectively, did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to call a witness at trial and, subsequently, counsel failed to argue the failure to do so at the first postconviction relief proceeding. We summ
Summary: PER CURIAM. [ 1] David L. Thorson appeals from a district court order denying his application for postconviction relief. Thorson argues the district court erred in finding representation of his attorneys at trial and at his first postconviction relief proceeding, respectively, did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to call a witness at trial and, subsequently, counsel failed to argue the failure to do so at the first postconviction relief proceeding. We summa..
More
PER CURIAM.
[¶1] David L. Thorson appeals from a district court order denying his application for postconviction relief. Thorson argues the district court erred in finding representation of his attorneys at trial and at his first postconviction relief proceeding, respectively, did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to call a witness at trial and, subsequently, counsel failed to argue the failure to do so at the first postconviction relief proceeding. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), concluding the district court's findings of facts are not clearly erroneous.
[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J., Daniel J. Crothers, Lisa Fair McEvers, Carol Ronning Kapsner, Dale V. Sandstrom.
Source: Leagle
