Curtiss v. State

2019 ND 120, 926 N.W.2d 707

Opinion

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Spencer Curtiss appeals from an order denying his application for post-conviction relief and an order denying his motions for reconsideration and to correct his sentence. On appeal, Curtiss argues the district court erred in granting summary disposition because there was newly discovered evidence, he received ineffective assistance of counsel in prior post-conviction relief proceedings, and there were conflicts of interest with his attorneys throughout his criminal and post-conviction relief proceedings. He also argues the court erred by denying his motions for reconsideration and to correct an illegal sentence. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4), (6), and (7). See Carlson v. State , 2018 ND 81 , ¶ 7, 908 N.W.2d 711 (dismissal is appropriate when the alleged newly discovered evidence does not satisfy the exception under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(3)(a)(1) because the evidence is not new and would not establish the petitioner did not engage in the criminal conduct for which he was convicted).

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Jon J. Jensen

Lisa Fair McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers

Jerod E. Tufte