McGinnis v. State
Opinion
FILED
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
NOVEMBER 9, 2023
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2023 ND 211
Neil Adam McGinnis, Petitioner and Appellant v.
State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
No. 20230119
Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable James S. Hill, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Leo P. O’Day, Fargo, N.D., for petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief.
Robert N. Togni, Assistant State’s Attorney, Bismarck, N.D., for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief.
McGinnis v. State
No. 20230119
Per Curiam.
[¶1] Neil McGinnis appeals from a district court order denying his petition for postconviction relief. On appeal, he argues the district court erred when it found that he made no coherent argument as to why a parole officer’s testimony was perjured and that his attack on the officer’s credibility was made without any admissible supporting evidence. Findings of fact made in a postconviction relief proceeding are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. Bridges v. State, 2021 ND 232, ¶ 5, 968 N.W.2d 188. After a full review of the record, we conclude the district court’s findings are not clearly erroneous. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2023 ND 211 (McGinnis v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.