HAPPEL v. STATE (2024)

[¶1] Tyson Happel appeals from an order denying his application for postconviction relief. Happel's application alleges he received ineffective assistance of counsel and evidence not previously presented exists. Happel argues the district court erred in denying his application because he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his counsel did not request a psychological evaluation to determine Happel's competency to assist in his defense before his change of plea. The court held an evidentiary hearing on September 26, 2023, and made findings of fact in reaching its conclusion.

[¶2] The district court held Happel did not satisfy the Strickland test and did not establish his attorney's assistance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. The court also found Happel presented no argument at the postconviction relief hearing on newly discovered evidence. Findings of fact made in a postconviction relief proceeding are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. After a full review of the record, we conclude the court's findings of facts are not clearly erroneous and the court did not err in determining Happel failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Per Curiam.

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