Richardson v. State

                                                                              FILED
                                                                      IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                   CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                          MARCH 31, 2023
                                                                    STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA




                 IN THE SUPREME COURT
                 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                               

Richard Richardson III,                            Petitioner and Appellant
     v.
State of North Dakota,                            Respondent and Appellee



                              No. 20220291

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central
Judicial District, the Honorable Jason M. McCarthy, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Benjamin C. Pulkrabek, Mandan, ND, for petitioner and appellant.

Andrew C. Eyre, Assistant State’s Attorney, Grand Forks, ND, for respondent
and appellee.
                             Richardson v. State
                                No. 20220291

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Richard Richardson appeals from an order denying his application for
post-conviction relief. In 2020, Richardson was found guilty of reckless
endangerment. Richardson appealed the conviction, arguing the evidence was
insufficient and that he acted in self-defense. We affirmed the conviction. State
v. Richardson, 

, 

. Richardson then petitioned
for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Richardson
argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel because a witness who
would have corroborated his self-defense claim did not show up for trial despite
being subpoenaed. The district court found Richardson failed to show his
attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. The
court further found Richardson failed to establish he was prejudiced by his
attorney’s conduct because he did not show a reasonable probability that the
results of the case would have been different had the witness testified.

[¶2] We conclude the district court’s findings regarding the second prong,
whether counsel’s representation caused prejudice, are not clearly erroneous.
Courts need not address both prongs of the Strickland test if the matter can be
resolved by addressing only one prong. Rencountre v. State, 

,

 (citing Osier v. State, 

, 

). The
court did not clearly err in denying Richardson’s application for post-conviction
relief, and 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