Court Opinion

ID: 9902236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-24 15:06:19.576856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:48.103682
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                            IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                         CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                             NOVEMBER 24, 2023
                                                                          STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT
                  STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                 2023 ND 215

Dean Benter,                                          Petitioner and Appellant
   v.
State of North Dakota,                                Respondent and Appellee

                                No. 20230202

Appeal from the District Court of Barnes County, Southeast Judicial District,
the Honorable Troy J. LeFevre, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Tia L. Bossert, Dickinson, ND, for petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief.

Tonya Duffy, State’s Attorney, Valley City, ND, for respondent and appellee;
submitted on brief.
                               Benter v. State
                                No. 20230202

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Dean Benter appeals from a district court order denying his application
for post-conviction relief. Benter argues the court erred in denying post-
conviction relief because his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated
when he received ineffective trial and appellate representation. He also argues
he was denied counsel without a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver.
Benter represented himself at trial after waiving his right to counsel. State v.
Benter, 2022 ND 101, ¶¶ 13, 16, 974 N.W.2d 403 (holding the district court did
not err in finding Benter knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his
right to counsel and in determining he was competent to present his own
defense).

[¶2] We conclude the district court’s findings that no persuasive evidence
established ineffective assistance of counsel and that there was no prejudice to
Benter regarding the second prong of the Strickland test—whether counsel’s
representation caused prejudice—are not clearly erroneous. Courts need not
address both prongs of the Strickland test if the matter can be resolved by
addressing only one prong. Rencountre v. State, 2015 ND 62, ¶ 7, 860 N.W.2d
837; Osier v. State, 2014 ND 41, ¶ 11, 843 N.W.2d 277. We summarily affirm
under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7); Benter, 2022 ND 101, ¶¶ 13, 16.

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

                                       1