 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Steen12/17/2004
AFFIRMED.
[ ] Randal Steen appealed from a criminal judgment of conviction for possession and manufacture of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia, and from an order denying his motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm, concluding the trial court did not err when it determined Steen had failed to demonstrate that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.
I.
[ ] On January 16, 2002, Deputy Dan Wentz of the Burleigh County Sheriff's Office was attempting to serve civil papers upon Randal Steen and was informed that Steen was staying in Room 55 at the NoDak Motel in Bismarck. Wentz contacted Deputy Brad Banker of the criminal warrants division, who told Wentz there were outstanding warrants on Steen. After contacting the motel manager to confirm that Steen was registered in Room 55, Wentz, Banker, and Deputy Charlene Schuh went to the motel. Banker knocked on the door, and there was noise from inside the room. Steen eventually opened the door, and the officers entered. Banker told Steen that they had warrants for his arrest, and Steen was handcuffed.
[ ] The officers noticed what appeared to be drugs and paprahernalia in the room, and they asked Steen for permission to search. When Steen declined, Banker contacted Captain Collin Rixen in the warrants division of the Burleigh County Sheriff's Office. Rixen and an assistant state's attorney secured a search warrant from the district court. The resulting search produced additional drugs and paraphernalia.
[ ] Steen was charged with manufacture of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine, and two counts of possession of paraphernalia. A jury found Steen guilty on all four counts, and a judgment of conviction was entered. Steen filed a notice of appeal from the judgment.
[ ] While the appeal was pending, Steen filed a motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. An evidentiary hearing was held, and the court issued an order denying the motion for post-conviction relief. Steen filed a notice of appeal from that order.
II.
[ ] Although Steen filed appeals from both the criminal judgment and the order denying his motion for post-conviction relief, his arguments on appeal all relate solely to the post-conviction proceeding. Accordingly, we address his arguments in that context.
A.
[ ] Steen contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief based upon his claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.
[ ] Post-conviction relief proceedings are civil in nature and are governed by the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure. Heckelsmiller v. State, 2004 ND 191, 5, 687 N.W.2d 454; Ernst v. State, 2004 ND 152, 6, 683 N.W.2d 891. The issue of ineffective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact which is fully reviewable by this Court. Heckelsmiller, at 5; Ernst, at 6. However, a trial court's findings of fact in a post-conviction proceeding will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a). Heckelsmiller, at 5; Ernst, at 6.
[ ] The petitioner for post-conviction relief has the burden of establishing a basis for relief. Ernst, 2004 ND 152, 6, 683 N.W.2d 891. In Garcia v. State, 2004 ND 81, 5, 678 N.W.2d 568, we outlined the "heavy burden" required of the petitioner to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel:
The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I, § 12 of the North Dakota Constitution guarantee a criminal defendan
Page 1 2 3 4 North Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|