Matuska v. State
This text of 2016 ND 52 (Matuska 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 3/15/16 by Clerk of Supreme Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2016 ND 52
Mark Matuska, Petitioner and Appellant
v.
State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
No. 20150235
Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce B. Haskell, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Charles A. Stock, P.O. Box 605, Crookston, MN 56716-0605, for petitioner and appellant.
Justin J. Schwarz, Assistant State’s Attorney, 514 East Thayer Avenue, Bismarck, N.D. 58501-4413, for respondent and appellee.
Matuska v. State
[¶1] Mark Matuska appeals a district court order denying his petition for post-
conviction relief after pleading guilty to multiple drug crimes. At the evidentiary hearing on his petition, he alleged he pled guilty because of ineffective assistance of counsel and a diminished mental state. He argued a manifest injustice exists and requested to withdraw his guilty plea. The district court denied his petition, concluding a manifest injustice did not exist allowing for withdrawal of his guilty plea. The court’s findings of fact at the hearing are supported in the record. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding a manifest injustice did not exist. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Lisa Fair McEvers
Daniel J. Crothers
Dale V. Sandstrom
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2016 ND 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matuska-v-state-nd-2016.