Court Opinion

ID: 9951545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-18 14:07:56.361326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:41:39.724628
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                       IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                    CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                           MARCH 18, 2024
                                                                     STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                   IN THE SUPREME COURT
                   STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                               2024 ND 50

Tyson L. Happel,                                   Petitioner and Appellant
     v.
State of North Dakota,                            Respondent and Appellee

                              No. 20230338

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial
District, the Honorable David E. Reich, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

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

Justin J. Schwarz, Assistant State’s Attorney, Bismarck, ND, for respondent
and appellee; submitted on brief.
                              Happel v. State
                               No. 20230338

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Tyson Happel appeals from an order denying his application for
postconviction relief. Happel’s application alleges he received ineffective
assistance of counsel and evidence not previously presented exists. Happel
argues the district court erred in denying his application because he received
ineffective assistance of counsel when his counsel did not request a
psychological evaluation to determine Happel’s competency to assist in his
defense before his change of plea. The court held an evidentiary hearing on
September 26, 2023, and made findings of fact in reaching its conclusion.

[¶2] The district court held Happel did not satisfy the Strickland test and did
not establish his attorney’s assistance fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness. The court also found Happel presented no argument at the
postconviction relief hearing on newly discovered evidence. Findings of fact
made in a postconviction relief proceeding are subject to the clearly erroneous
standard of review. After a full review of the record, we conclude the court’s
findings of facts are not clearly erroneous and the court did not err in
determining Happel failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. We
summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

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

                                      1