Court Opinion

ID: 9925598
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-22 15:05:47.33395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:19.709828
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                         IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                      CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                           JANUARY 22, 2024
                                                                       STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                 IN THE SUPREME COURT
                 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                2024 ND 14

Chase Duane Swanson,                                Petitioner and Appellant
     v.
State of North Dakota,                              Respondent and Appellee

                               No. 20230249

Appeal from the District Court of Bowman County, Southwest Judicial District,
the Honorable William A. Herauf, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Rina Morales-Holmes, Minot, ND, for petitioner and appellant; submitted on
brief.

Andrew J. Q. Weiss, State’s Attorney, Bowman, ND, for respondent and
appellee; submitted on brief.
                              Swanson v. State
                               No. 20230249

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Chase Swanson appeals from a district court order denying his
application for postconviction relief. In 2021, Swanson pled guilty to one count
of conspiracy to commit murder. Swanson applied for postconviction relief
claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and raising constitutional challenges
to the laws applied. The court summarily dismissed Swanson’s constitutional
claims, but held an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance of counsel
claim. After an evidentiary hearing, the court denied his application.

[¶2] On appeal, Swanson argues the district court erred in denying his
application because he received ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming his
attorney failed to properly advise him regarding his guilty plea and sentence.
After a review of the record, we conclude the court’s findings regarding the
second prong, whether counsel’s representation caused prejudice, were not
clearly erroneous and we are not left with a definite and firm conviction a
mistake has been made. Courts need not address both prongs of the Strickland
test if the case can be disposed of by addressing only one prong. Broadwell v.
State, 2014 ND 6, ¶ 7, 841 N.W.2d 750. Swanson failed to present competent
and admissible evidence to establish prejudice under the second prong of the
two-prong Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel in the context of
a guilty plea. See Booth v. State, 2017 ND 97, ¶¶ 9-15, 893 N.W.2d 186 (holding
defendant failed to show counsel’s allegedly deficient performance in advising
him with regard to his plea of guilty prejudiced him and, therefore, did not
establish ineffective assistance of counsel).

[¶3] Swanson also argues he was not afforded an opportunity to be heard on
all of the issues because the district court limited the evidentiary hearing. We
decline to address this argument. See State v. Gates, 2020 ND 237, ¶ 8, 951
N.W.2d 223 (issues not adequately articulated, supported, and briefed are not
considered on appeal). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and
(7).

                                       1
[¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
     Daniel J. Crothers
     Lisa Fair McEvers
     Jerod E. Tufte
     Douglas A. Bahr

                           2