Ruddell v. State
This text of 2015 ND 78 (Ruddell 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 4/1/15 by Clerk of Supreme Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2015 ND 78
Byron Ruddell, Petitioner and Appellant
v.
State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
No. 20140413
Appeal from the District Court of Stutsman County, Southeast Judicial District, the Honorable Thomas E. Merrick, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Lee M. Grossman, 341 Central Avenue North, Suite 3, P.O. Box 475, Valley City, N.D. 58072, for petitioner and appellant; on brief.
Frederick R. Fremgen, Assistant State’s Attorney, 511 Second Avenue SE, Jamestown, N.D. 58401, for respondent and appellee; on brief.
Ruddell v. State
[¶1] Byron Ruddell appeals from a district court order denying him post-conviction relief. He argues the district court, without holding an evidentiary hearing, erred in summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief, because the court did not give all reasonable inferences in regard to his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7). See Dunn v. State , 2006 ND 26, ¶ 12, 709 N.W.2d 1 (if a petitioner fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact, summary disposition will be appropriate).
[¶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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2015 ND 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruddell-v-state-nd-2015.