Chad Ron Rugland, Petitioner and Appellant
v.
State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
No. 20250117
Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central
Judicial District, the Honorable M. Jason McCarthy, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, N.D., for petitioner and appellant; on brief.
Andrew C. Eyre, Assistant State’s Attorney, and Andrea Rud, under the Rule on
Limited Practice of Law by Law Students, Grand Forks, N.D., for respondent and
appellee; on brief.
Rugland v. State
No. 20250117
Per Curiam.
[¶1] Chad Rugland appeals from an order denying his postconviction relief
application entered after an evidentiary hearing. Rugland argues the district
court erred in determining he failed to establish he received ineffective assistance
of counsel prior to pleading guilty, and not allowing him to withdraw his guilty
plea. Findings of fact made in a postconviction relief proceeding will not be
disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Jung v. State,
2024 ND 94
, ¶ 6,
6
N.W.3d 853
. “The district court has discretion in deciding whether circumstances
establish a manifest injustice, necessitating the withdrawal of a guilty plea; we
review the court’s decision for abuse of discretion.” Hersha v. State,
). After
reviewing the record, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding
Rugland failed to establish his counsel’s performance fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness under prong one of the Strickland test. Samaniego v.
State,
(“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.”). The court did not abuse its discretion by not
allowing Rugland to withdraw his guilty plea. We summarily affirm under
N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
Douglas A. Bahr
1
