State v. Ford

                   IN THE SUPREME COURT
                   STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                  

State of North Dakota,                                     Plaintiff and Appellee
      v.
Carl Lavin Ford,                                       Defendant and Appellant



                                  No. 20240074

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the
Honorable John C. Irby, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion of the Court by McEvers, Justice.

Renata J. Olafson Selzer, Assistant State’s Attorney, Fargo, ND, for plaintiff and
appellee; on brief.

Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellant; on brief.
                                  State v. Ford
                                  No. 20240074

McEvers, Justice.

[¶1] Carl Ford appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him
guilty of domestic violence. Ford argues he received ineffective assistance of
counsel, he was illegally extradited, his attorney and the State withheld evidence
from him, and there was insufficient evidence supporting his conviction. We
affirm.

                                        I

[¶2] Ford argues he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because
counsel failed to submit the weapon used to commit the crime for DNA testing,
and failed to move to dismiss the case after receiving information that the victim
wanted the case dismissed.

[¶3] “[A] defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel has a heavy
burden of proving (1) counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard
of reasonableness, and (2) the defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s deficient
performance.” State v. Schweitzer, 

, 

. Generally,
we do not address ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal where
the record is inadequate:

      [A]n ineffective assistance of counsel claim should not be brought
      on direct appeal. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are best
      brought in a post-conviction relief proceeding where the parties are
      able to fully develop the record. When a claim is raised on direct
      appeal, we review the record to determine if counsel was plainly
      defective. When the record on direct appeal is inadequate to
      determine whether the defendant received ineffective assistance, the
      defendant may pursue the ineffectiveness claim at a postconviction
      proceeding where an adequate record can be made.

State v. Glaum, 

, 

 (quoting State v. Keener, 

, 

).




                                        1
[¶4] We conclude the record is inadequate to determine Ford’s ineffective
assistance of counsel claims, but the issue may be pursued in a postconviction
proceeding where an adequate record can be made. See Glaum, 

;
State v. Demerais, 

, 

.

                                         II

[¶5] Ford argues he was illegally extradited from Iowa to North Dakota to
stand trial, his attorney and the State withheld evidence from him, and there was
insufficient evidence supporting his conviction for domestic violence. We
conclude Ford’s extradition argument fails because the relief he seeks—reversal
of the judgment of conviction—is not a proper remedy in the case of an irregular
extradition. See Frisbie v. Collins, 

 (1952) (“[T]he power of a court
to try a person for crime is not impaired by the fact that he had been brought
within the court’s jurisdiction by reason of a ‘forcible abduction.’”); State v. Mees,

 (N.D. 1978) (“The rule is well settled that an illegal arrest is
not grounds for dismissing a complaint or precluding trial of a defendant. Nor
will an illegal arrest void a subsequent conviction.”). Because Ford did not raise
the issue concerning withholding evidence in the district court, or brief the issue
on appeal under the obvious error standard of review, we decline to address the
issue. State v. Nelson, 

, 

. Viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude substantial evidence
supports the verdict. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3)
and (7).

                                         III

[¶6] The criminal judgment is affirmed.

[¶7] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
     Daniel J. Crothers
     Lisa Fair McEvers
     Jerod E. Tufte
     Douglas A. Bahr




                                          2