Morris Jerome Brickle-Hicks, Petitioner and Appellant
v.
State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
No. 20210073
Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial
District, the Honorable John W. Grinsteiner, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, ND, for petitioner and appellant.
Julie A. Lawyer, State’s Attorney, and Jamie Schaible, under the Rule on
Limited Practice of Law by Law Students, Bismarck, ND, for respondent and
appellee; submitted on brief.
Brickle-Hicks v. State
No. 20210073
Per Curiam.
[¶1] Morris Jerome Brickle-Hicks appeals from an order denying his
application for postconviction relief, claiming the district court erred in
denying his application for postconviction relief due to ineffective assistance of
counsel. Following a hearing the court found Brickle-Hicks failed to
demonstrate that his counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard
or that he was prejudiced by the alleged deficient performance.
[¶2] “Courts need not address both prongs of the Strickland test, and if a court
can resolve the case by addressing only one prong it is encouraged to do so.”
Rourke v. State,
(citation omitted). “If it is
easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient
prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.”
The district court did not clearly err in denying Brickle-Hicks’ application for
postconviction relief, and we summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Gerald W. VandeWalle
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
1
