Kitzan v. State
This text of 2015 ND 241 (Kitzan v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Filed 10/13/15 by Clerk of Supreme Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2015 ND 241
Brent Leray Kitzan, Petitioner and Appellant
v.
State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
No. 20150045
Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Cynthia M. Feland, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Charles A. Stock, 407 North Broadway, P.O. Box 605, Crookston, Minnesota 56716-0605, for petitioner and appellant.
Richard J. Meurin, Assistant State’s Attorney, Burleigh County State’s Attorney’s Office, 514 East Thayer Avenue, Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for respondent and appellee.
Kitzan v. State
[¶1] Brent Kitzan appeals from a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. Kitzan argues he was entitled to post-conviction relief because his counsel was ineffective in failing to request a restitution hearing and the district court erred in finding he failed to establish a reasonable probability that a lower restitution amount would have been ordered had a restitution hearing been held. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), concluding the district court did not err in dismissing Kitzan’s application for post-conviction relief.
[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Dale V. Sandstrom
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2015 ND 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kitzan-v-state-nd-2015.