Sheldon George Davis, Petitioner and Appellant
v.
State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
No. 20250319
Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the
Honorable Tristan J. Van de Streek, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Sheldon G. Davis, self-represented, Bismarck, N.D., petitioner and appellant; on
brief.
Rachel R. Egstad and Megan J. Kvasager Essig, Assistant State’s Attorneys,
Grand Forks, N.D., for respondent and appellee; on brief.
Davis v. State
No. 20250319
Per Curiam.
[¶1] Sheldon Davis appeals from an order denying his application for
postconviction relief. Davis claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel
because his trial counsel failed to investigate and call certain witnesses and
present certain evidence. After an evidentiary hearing, at which Davis and
Davis’s trial counsel testified, the court found Davis failed to establish that his
trial counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness
and that there was a reasonable probability that, but for the alleged errors of
counsel, the outcome of trial would have been different.
[¶2] Findings of fact made in a postconviction relief proceeding are subject to
the clearly erroneous standard of review. Urrabazo v. State,
. We conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding Davis
did not prove his counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness. Truelove v. State,
(“Trial
strategy is the attorney’s province and on appeal, we do not second guess
matters of trial tactics, such as the decision to call certain witnesses, hire private
investigators, or how to question certain witnesses.” (cleaned up)); Broadwell v.
State,
(“Courts need not address both elements
of the ineffective assistance of counsel test, and if a court can dispose of the case
by addressing only one element, it is encouraged to do so.”).
[¶3] To the extent Davis attempted to raise other issues, those issues were
inadequately briefed, failing to meet the minimum requirements of
N.D.R.App.P. 28(b). Hoever v. Wilder,
.
[¶4] We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (7), and (8).
[¶5] Lisa Fair McEvers, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Jerod E. Tufte
Jon J. Jensen
Douglas A. Bahr
1
