State v. Romero

¶1Filed 5/14/13 by Clerk of Supreme Court

¶2IN THE SUPREME COURT

¶3STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

¶4

¶5

¶6

¶72013 ND 66

¶8

¶9

¶10

¶11John Karl Ennen, Petitioner and Appellant

¶12

¶13v.

¶14

¶15State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

¶16

¶17

¶18

¶19No. 20120408

¶20

¶21

¶22

¶23Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Cynthia Feland, Judge.

¶24

¶25AFFIRMED.

¶26

¶27Per Curiam.

¶28

¶29Kent M. Morrow, P.O. Box 2155, Bismarck, N.D. 58502-2155, for petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief.

¶30

¶31Jackson J. Lofgren, Assistant State’s Attorney, 210 2nd Avenue NW, Mandan, N.D. 58554, for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief.

¶32

¶33

¶34

¶35

¶36

¶37

¶38

¶39

¶40

¶41

¶42Ennen v. State

¶43No. 20120408

¶44

¶45Per Curiam.

¶46[¶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.  SeeState 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).

¶47[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

¶48Mary Muehlen Maring

¶49Daniel J. Crothers

¶50Dale V. Sandstrom

¶51Carol Ronning Kapsner