Tamba v. State

2018 ND 220, 918 N.W.2d 64
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 3, 2018
Docket20180046
StatusPublished

This text of 2018 ND 220 (Tamba 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.

Bluebook
Tamba v. State, 2018 ND 220, 918 N.W.2d 64 (N.D. 2018).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

[¶ 1] Richard Tamba appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. Tamba argues the district court erred in finding Tamba failed to establish he was prejudiced by his trial counsel's deficient representation. At oral argument, Tamba raised issues regarding the proper interpretation of Padilla v. Kentucky , 559 U.S. 356 , 372, 130 S.Ct. 1473 , 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010). This issue was not raised in the briefs, so we do not consider it. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). Bahtiraj v. State , 2013 ND 240 , ¶ 17, 840 N.W.2d 605 (in an immigration case, discussing factors to be considered by the district court in determining whether a defendant would have decided not to plead guilty and insisted instead on going to trial).

[¶ 2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Jon J. Jensen

Lisa Fair McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers

Jerod E. Tufte

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Padilla v. Kentucky
559 U.S. 356 (Supreme Court, 2010)
Bahtiraj v. State
2013 ND 240 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2018 ND 220, 918 N.W.2d 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tamba-v-state-nd-2018.