Court Opinion

ID: 9383842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 14:06:37.477219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:48.581367
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 64

Warren James Wilkinson, Sr.,                       Petitioner and Appellant
     v.
State of North Dakota,                            Respondent and Appellee

                               No. 20220282

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central
Judicial District, the Honorable John A. Thelen, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Laura C. Ringsak, Bismarck, ND, for petitioner and appellant; submitted on
brief.

Andrew C. Eyre, Assistant State’s Attorney, and Murial Rott, third-year law
student, under the Rule on Limited Practice of Law by Law Students, Grand
Forks, ND, for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief.
                              Wilkinson v. State
                                No. 20220282

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Warren Wilkinson appeals from a district court order denying his
application for post-conviction relief. Wilkinson was convicted by a jury of gross
sexual imposition. On direct appeal, Wilkinson argued insufficient evidence
exists to sustain the conviction, and this Court affirmed. State v. Wilkinson,
2020 ND 244, 950 N.W.2d 761.

[¶2] Wilkinson argues his attorney’s representation fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness because the attorney failed to submit a pretrial
motion, failed to conduct a meaningful investigation, failed to validate the
authenticity of a recording, made concessions at trial, and allowed Wilkinson
to testify without adequately preparing him. After an evidentiary hearing, the
district court denied Wilkinson’s application, concluding he did not overcome
the presumption his trial counsel’s representation fell within the wide range of
reasonable professional assistance.

[¶3] We conclude the district court’s findings are not clearly erroneous. See
Truelove v. State, 2020 ND 142, ¶¶ 6, 11, 945 N.W.2d 272 (the clearly erroneous
standard of review applies to findings of fact in post-conviction relief
proceedings; matters of trial strategy will not be second-guessed on appeal).
We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

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

                                        1