MCGINNIS v. STATE (2023)

[¶1] Neil McGinnis appeals from a district court order denying his petition for postconviction relief. On appeal, he argues the district court erred when it found that he made no coherent argument as to why a parole officer's testimony was perjured and that his attack on the officer's credibility was made without any admissible supporting evidence. Findings of fact made in a postconviction relief proceeding are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. Bridges v. State, 2021 ND 232, ¶ 5, 968 N.W.2d 188. After a full review of the record, we conclude the district court's findings are not clearly erroneous. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Per Curiam.

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr