Matthews v. State

¶1Filed 6/30/16 by Clerk of Supreme Court

¶2IN THE SUPREME COURT

¶3STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

¶4

¶5

¶6

¶72016 ND 123

¶8

¶9

¶10

¶11Antonio Matthews, Petitioner and Appellant

¶12

¶13v.

¶14

¶15State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

¶16

¶17

¶18

¶19No. 20160037

¶20

¶21

¶22

¶23Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable Lolita G. Hartl Romanick, Judge.

¶24

¶25AFFIRMED.

¶26

¶27Per Curiam.

¶28

¶29Samuel A. Gereszek, 308 DeMers Avenue, P.O. Box 4, East Grand Forks, Minnesota 56721-0004, for petitioner and appellant; on brief.

¶30

¶31M. Jason McCarthy and Meredith H. Larson, Assistant State’s Attorneys, Grand Forks County State’s Attorney’s Office, 124 South Fourth Street, P.O. Box 5607, Grand Forks, N.D. 58206-5607, for respondent and appellee; on brief.

¶32Matthews v. State

¶33No. 20160037

¶34

¶35Per Curiam.

¶36[¶1] Antonio Matthews appeals after the district court denied him post-conviction relief.  Matthews argues he was entitled to post-conviction relief because his counsel was ineffective by failing to move for suppression of the evidence.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), concluding the district court’s denial of Matthews’ post-conviction relief application was based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous.

¶37[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

¶38Dale V. Sandstrom

¶39Daniel J. Crothers

¶40Lisa Fair McEvers

¶41Carol Ronning Kapsner