Court Opinion

ID: 9931070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 15:06:50.048659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:18.319381
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                         IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                      CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                           FEBRUARY 8, 2024
                                                                       STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT
                  STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                 2024 ND 17

Douglas E. Landis,                                   Petitioner and Appellant
      v.
State of North Dakota,                               Respondent and Appellee

                                No. 20230224

Appeal from the District Court of Mountrail County, North Central Judicial
District, the Honorable Richard L. Hagar, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Kyle R. Craig, Minot, ND, for petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief.

Wade G. Enget, State’s Attorney, Stanley, ND, for respondent and appellee;
submitted on brief.
                               Landis v. State
                                No. 20230224

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Douglas Landis appeals from an order summarily dismissing his
application for postconviction relief before an evidentiary hearing was held.
Landis’s postconviction application alleges actual innocence, legal innocence,
judicial error, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Landis’s brief makes no argument related to the actual innocence, legal
innocence, judicial error, and prosecutorial misconduct claims. We only decide
those issues which are “thoroughly briefed and argued” and “a party waives an
issue by not providing adequate supporting argument.” Weeks v. N.D.
Workforce Safety & Ins. Fund, 2011 ND 188, ¶ 9, 803 N.W.2d 601 (quoting
Olson v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2008 ND 59, ¶ 26, 747 N.W.2d 71). We deem
those issues were waived by failure to support them in the brief.

[¶2] Landis also argues the district court erred in denying his application
because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court concluded
Landis failed to present competent and admissible evidence which raised an
issue of material facts that his counsel’s representation fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness. We conclude the court properly dismissed Landis’s
application under these circumstances. We summarily affirm under
N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6). See Atkins v. State, 2017 ND 290, ¶ 6, 904 N.W.2d 738
(finding summary denial of postconviction relief appropriate when the State
moves for summary disposition, and a petitioner fails to provide some
competent evidence to support his claims).

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

                                       1