Court Opinion

ID: 9383854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 14:06:50.707879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:48.618897
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                        IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                     CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                            MARCH 31, 2023
                                                                      STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                 IN THE SUPREME COURT
                 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                2023 ND 66

Wayne Herbert Martinez,                             Petitioner and Appellant
     v.
State of North Dakota,                              Respondent and Appellee

                               No. 20220281

Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial
District, the Honorable Lindsey R. Nieuwsma, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, N.D., for petitioner and appellant;
submitted on brief.

Chase R. Lingle, Assistant State’s Attorney, Mandan, N.D., for respondent and
appellee; submitted on brief.
                              Martinez v. State
                               No. 20220281

Per Curiam.

[¶1] This Court affirmed Wayne Martinez’s criminal conviction on direct
appeal. State v. Martinez, 2022 ND 21, 969 N.W.2d 442. Martinez now appeals
from a district court order denying his application for postconviction relief on
grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and denying his motion to amend
his application. Following a hearing, the court found that Martinez failed to
establish his attorney’s conduct fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness and, in addition, that he did not show the results of the trial
would have been different absent the alleged error. We conclude the district
court’s findings are not clearly erroneous. At the conclusion of the hearing on
the petition, Martinez moved to amend his petition to allege additional
grounds, and the district court denied the motion because there was no reason
offered why these grounds could not have been raised earlier. We affirm under
N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
     Daniel J. Crothers
     Lisa Fair McEvers
     Jerod E. Tufte
     Douglas A. Bahr

                                       1