¶1Filed 3/24/15 by Clerk of Supreme Court
¶2IN THE SUPREME COURT
¶3STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
¶11Wayne James Otto, Petitioner and Appellant
¶13v.
¶15State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
¶19No. 20140400
¶23Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Sonna M. Anderson, Judge.
¶25AFFIRMED.
¶27Per Curiam.
¶29Lee M. Grossman, 341 Central Avenue North, Suite 3, P.O. Box 475, Valley City, ND 58072, for petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief.
¶31Dawn M. Deitz, Assistant State’s Attorney, 514 East Thayer Avenue, Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief.
¶32Otto v. State
¶33No. 20140400
¶35Per Curiam.
¶36[¶1] Wayne Otto appeals from a district court order denying him post-conviction relief. He argues the district court erred in summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief, because the court did not give all reasonable inferences in regard to his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. He also argues the district court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to further develop his claims regarding the alleged drug dog investigation. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7). See Ude v. State , 2009 ND 71, ¶ 12, 764 N.W.2d 419 (a petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his application for post-
¶37conviction relief if he fails to provide any competent evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact); Dunn v. State , 2006 ND 26, ¶ 12, 709 N.W.2d 1 (if a petitioner fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact, summary disposition will be appropriate).
¶38[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
¶39Dale V. Sandstrom
¶40Daniel J. Crothers
¶41Lisa Fair McEvers
¶42Carol Ronning Kapsner