TIAH v. STATE (2025)

[¶1] Emmanuel Dwah Tiah is a non-citizen of the United States who appeals from an amended judgment denying his applications for postconviction relief. Tiah argues the district court erred in denying his applications, claiming he received ineffective assistance of counsel. He argues his counsel failed to inform him that his convictions may subject him to removal from this country, and that had he known as much, he would not have changed his plea.

[¶2] After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found Tiah's counsel consulted with and relied on the advice of a “well-respected immigration attorney” who indicated Tiah's charges would make him deportable, but a sentence under 180 days may not be acted on by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which was discussed with Tiah prior to his change of plea. The court found Tiah did not meet the first prong of Strickland, because his counsel provided reasonable representation considering the prevailing norms, and he failed to establish the prejudice necessary to satisfy the second prong of Strickland. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

[¶3] We conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding Tiah failed to establish his counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under the first prong of Strickland. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Per Curiam.

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