State v. Romero
This text of 2013 ND 77 (State v. Romero) 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 5/14/13 by Clerk of Supreme Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2013 ND 66
John Karl Ennen, Petitioner and Appellant
v.
State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
No. 20120408
Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Cynthia Feland, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Kent M. Morrow, P.O. Box 2155, Bismarck, N.D. 58502-2155, for petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief.
Jackson J. Lofgren, Assistant State’s Attorney, 210 2nd Avenue NW, Mandan, N.D. 58554, for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief.
Ennen v. State
[¶1] John Ennen appeals from an order denying his application for post-conviction relief. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court decided Ennen did not receive ineffective assistance of trial counsel in proceedings culminating with this Court’s summary affirmance of his conviction for surreptitious intrusion. See State v. Ennen , 2011 ND 130, ¶ 1, 803 N.W.2d 834. We conclude the district court did not err in deciding Ennen did not receive ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and we affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Mary Muehlen Maring
Daniel J. Crothers
Dale V. Sandstrom
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
2013 ND 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-romero-nd-2013.