Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel when his client chose to enter an open plea rather than accept the State's plea offer where counsel provided his client the options on how to proceed, explained the strengths and weaknesses of the case, and left the final decision on how to proceed to his client.
Travis Garth Eggl, Petitioner and Appellant
v.
State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
No. 20250183
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, ND, for petitioner and appellant.
Rachel R. Egstad, Assistant State’s Attorney, Grand Forks, ND, for respondent
and appellee; submitted on brief.
Eggl v. State
No. 20250183
Per Curiam.
[¶1] Travis Eggl appeals from the order denying his application for
postconviction relief. Eggl contends his trial counsel provided ineffective
assistance by advising him to enter an open plea of guilty rather than accept the
State’s plea offer. The district court found that Eggl’s trial counsel provided Eggl
with the options on how to proceed, the strengths and weaknesses of the case,
and left the final decision to Eggl, with the ultimate finding that Eggl failed to
show his counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness. See Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 688, 688, 694
(1984) (setting
forth the requirements a criminal defendant must satisfy to establish a
constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel).
[¶2] We conclude the district court’s determination that Eggl failed to establish
the first prong of the Strickland test (i.e., failed to show his counsel’s
representation fell below an objective standard of care) is supported by findings
meeting the required standard of proof. See United States v. Belfiore,
473 F.Supp.3d
72
, 89 (E.D.N.Y. 2020) (“[A]n attorney should usually inform the defendant of
the strengths and weaknesses of the case against him, as well as the alternative
sentences to which he will most likely be exposed. . . . The ultimate decision
whether to plead guilty must be made by the defendant, and a lawyer must take
care not to coerce a client into either accepting or rejecting a plea offer.” (cleaned
up)); United States v. Suris,
625 F.Supp.3d 1040
, 1048 (C.D. Cal. 2022) (“[T]o render
effective assistance, counsel need only lay out the likely consequences or possible
consequences of making a plea decision [and] . . . do[es] not render deficient
performance by making a mere inaccurate prediction[.]” (cleaned up)). We
summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
Douglas A. Bahr
1
