STATE v. JACKSON (2002)

[¶ 1] Michael Darnell Jackson appeals from two East Central Judicial District Court judgments of conviction for failure to register as a convicted sex offender in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15, alleging he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney did not move for a judgment of acquittal, under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29(a).

 [¶ 2] The issue of ineffective assistance of counsel is best raised in a post-conviction relief proceeding, except in rare cases.  State v. Norman, 507 N.W.2d 522, 525 (N.D.1993) (a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel should generally be raised in a post-conviction proceeding).   This is a rare case.

 [¶ 3] We hold, as a matter of law, it is not ineffective assistance for counsel to fail to move for a judgment of acquittal, under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29(a), when the prosecution has presented a prima facie case.  State v. Kroeplin, 266 N.W.2d 537, 543 (N.D.1978).   Here, the State presented a prima facie case.   Jackson did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.

[¶ 4] The district court's judgments of conviction are affirmed.

[¶ 5] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., WILLIAM A. NEUMANN, MARY MUEHLEN MARING, and CAROL RONNING KAPSNER, JJ., concur.

SANDSTROM, Justice.