Title: Stridiron v. State
Citation: 2012 ND 214
Docket Number: 
State: north-dakota
Issuer: north-dakota Supreme Court
Date: October 23, 2012

Stridiron v. State Annotate this Case Court Description: Order summarily dismissing application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7). IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2012 ND 214 Antonio Phillip Stridiron, Petitioner and Appellant v. State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee No. 20120159 Appeal from the District Court of Ward County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Douglas L. Mattson, Judge. AFFIRMED. Per Curiam. Steven Balaban, 200 N. Mandan St., Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief. Sean B. Kasson, Assistant State's Attorney, P.O. Box 5005, Minot, N.D. 58702-5005, for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief. Stridiron v. StateNo. 20120159 Per Curiam. [¶1] Antonio Stridiron appealed from a trial court order summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Stridiron argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel on five different bases: (1) counsel failed to file a motion to suppress; (2) counsel denied Stridiron his right to testify; (3) counsel failed to present Stridiron's version of the case; (4) counsel failed to object to the State's motion for joinder of the trials; and (5) counsel failed to raise Stridiron's Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury. [¶2] We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7); see Ude v. State, 2009 ND 71, ¶ 12, 764 N.W.2d 419 (stating a petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his application for post-conviction relief if he fails to provide any competent evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact). [¶3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Mary Muehlen Maring Daniel J. Crothers Dale V. Sandstrom Carol Ronning Kapsner