Title: Holbach v. State

State: north-dakota

Issuer: North Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

This opinion is subject to petition for rehearing.Filed Nov. 9, 2010 IN THE SUPREME COURTSTATE OF NORTH DAKOTA2010 ND 209 Mitchell David Holbach, Petitioner and Appellantv. State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee Nos. 20100141 & 20100142 State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Mitchell David Holbach, Defendant and Appellant Nos. 20100143 & 20100145 & 201000146 City of Minot, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Mitchell David Holbach, Defendant and Appellant No. 20100144 Appeal from the District Court of Ward County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Lee A. Christofferson, Judge.AFFIRMED.Per Curiam.Travis Wayne Finck, 314 East Thayer Avenue, Suite 200, Bismarck, N.D. 58504, for petitioner, defendant and appellant Mitchell David Holbach.Rozanna Christine Larson, P.O. Box 5005, Minot, N.D. 58702-5005, for respondent, plaintiff and appellee State of North Dakota.John P. Van Grinsven III, City Prosecutor, 515 2nd Avenue Southwest, Minot, N.D. 58701, for plaintiff and appellee City of Minot. Mitchell David Holbach, defendant and appellant; no appearance. Holbach v. StateNos. 20100141 - 20100146 Per Curiam. [1] Mitchell Holbach appeals from a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief, an order on his request for return of personal property, and an order denying his motion to amend the judgment and probation conditions. Holbach argues the district court improperly denied his application for post-conviction relief because his counsel was ineffective and the State unconstitutionally failed to disclose exculpatory videotape evidence. He also contends the court abused its discretion by quashing his subpoenas for the post-conviction evidentiary hearing, the court erred by denying his motion to amend the criminal judgment and probation conditions because the conditions of his probation are unconstitutionally vague, and the court erred in finding his personal property had been returned. We conclude the court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and the court did not abuse its discretion by quashing Holbach's subpoenas or denying his motion to amend the judgment and probation conditions. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). [2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.Mary Muehlen MaringDaniel J. CrothersDale V. SandstromCarol Ronning Kapsner