¶1Filed 6/19/13 by Clerk of Supreme Court
¶2IN THE SUPREME COURT
¶3STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
¶11Albert Spotted Wolf, Petitioner and Appellant
¶13v.
¶15State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
¶19No. 20120431
¶23Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce B. Haskell, Judge.
¶25AFFIRMED.
¶27Per Curiam.
¶29Blake D. Hankey (on brief), 405 Bruce Avenue, Ste. 100, Grand Forks, N.D. 58201, for petitioner and appellant.
¶31Dawn M. Deitz (on brief), Assistant State’s Attorney, 514 E. Thayer Avenue, Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for respondent and appellee.
¶35Spotted Wolf v. State
¶36No. 20120431
¶38Per Curiam.
¶39[¶1] Albert Spotted Wolf appeals the trial court’s order denying his second post-
¶40conviction relief application. In his post-conviction application, Spotted Wolf raised the following issues: (1) the trial court violated his due process rights for failing to advise him of his rights under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11; (2) the trial court erred in accepting his guilty plea without a proper factual basis; and (3) his trial counsel was ineffective for allowing him to plead guilty despite having been highly intoxicated at the time of the sexual assault. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7) on the grounds of misuse of process and res judicata. SeeKlose v. State, 2008 ND 143, ¶ 10, 752 N.W.2d 192 (holding misuse of process precludes claims when the defendant inexcusably failed to pursue an issue on appeal and now seeks review in a post-conviction application or failed to raise an issue in an initial post-conviction application and now seeks review in a subsequent post-conviction application); Smestad v. State, 2011 ND 163, ¶ 6, 801 N.W.2d 691 (holding res judicata precludes post-conviction relief claims or variations of the same claim that have been fully and finally decided in a prior proceeding).
¶41[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
¶42Mary Muehlen Maring
¶43Daniel J. Crothers
¶44Dale V. Sandstrom
¶45Carol Ronning Kapsner