Kitzan v. State

¶1Filed 10/13/15 by Clerk of Supreme Court

¶2IN THE SUPREME COURT

¶3STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

¶4

¶5

¶6

¶72015 ND 241

¶8

¶9

¶10

¶11Brent Leray Kitzan, Petitioner and Appellant

¶12

¶13v.

¶14

¶15State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

¶16

¶17

¶18

¶19No. 20150045

¶20

¶21

¶22

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

¶24

¶25AFFIRMED.

¶26

¶27Per Curiam.

¶28

¶29Charles A. Stock, 407 North Broadway, P.O. Box 605, Crookston, Minnesota 56716-0605, for petitioner and appellant.

¶30

¶31Richard J. Meurin, Assistant State’s Attorney, Burleigh County State’s Attorney’s Office, 514 East Thayer Avenue, Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for respondent and appellee.

¶32Kitzan v. State

¶33No. 20150045

¶34

¶35Per Curiam.

¶36[¶1] Brent Kitzan appeals from a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief.  Kitzan argues he was entitled to post-conviction relief because his counsel was ineffective in failing to request a restitution hearing and the district court erred in finding he failed to establish a reasonable probability that a lower restitution amount would have been ordered had a restitution hearing been held.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), concluding the district court did not err in dismissing Kitzan’s application for post-conviction relief.

¶37[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

¶38Dale V. Sandstrom

¶39Daniel J. Crothers

¶40Lisa Fair McEvers

¶41Carol Ronning Kapsner

¶42