Case Name: Richard Saa TAMBA, Petitioner and Appellant v. STATE of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Decision Date: 2018-10-03
Citations: 918 N.W.2d 64
Docket Number: No. 20180046
Parties: Richard Saa TAMBA, Petitioner and Appellant
v.
STATE of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 918
Pages: 64–64

Head Matter:
Richard Saa TAMBA, Petitioner and Appellant
v.
STATE of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
No. 20180046
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Filed October 3, 2018
Samuel A. Gereszek, East Grand Forks, MN, for petitioner and appellant.
Nicholas S. Samuelson (argued), third-year law student, appearing under the rule on the limited practice of law by law students, and Kara S. Olson (appeared), Assistant State's Attorney, Fargo, ND, for respondent and appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
[¶ 1] Richard Tamba appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. Tamba argues the district court erred in finding Tamba failed to establish he was prejudiced by his trial counsel's deficient representation. At oral argument, Tamba raised issues regarding the proper interpretation of Padilla v. Kentucky , 559 U.S. 356, 372, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010). This issue was not raised in the briefs, so we do not consider it. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). Bahtiraj v. State , 2013 ND 240, ¶ 17, 840 N.W.2d 605 (in an immigration case, discussing factors to be considered by the district court in determining whether a defendant would have decided not to plead guilty and insisted instead on going to trial).
[¶ 2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Jon J. Jensen
Lisa Fair McEvers
Daniel J. Crothers
Jerod E. Tufte