BROOKS v. STATE (2026)

[¶1] Charles Brooks appeals from a judgment denying his petition for postconviction relief. Brooks argues his attorney for probation revocation proceedings was ineffective by failing to object to exhibits and failing to disclose exhibits to Brooks prior to a review hearing.

[¶2] To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, an applicant must establish both prongs of the Strickland test by demonstrating (1) counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) he was prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance. Broadwell v. State, 2014 ND 6, ¶ 7, 841 N.W.2d 750. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found Brooks's counsel was not ineffective on the first prong of the Strickland test. The court did not make a finding as to the second prong; however, courts need not address both prongs of the Strickland test and are encouraged to resolve a case by addressing only one prong, if possible. Isxaaq v. State, 2021 ND 148, ¶ 12, 963 N.W.2d 260.

[¶3] Upon a review of the record, we conclude the district court's findings are not clearly erroneous and the court did not err in denying Brooks's petition for postconviction relief. Rademacher v. State, 2025 ND 137, ¶ 5, 23 N.W.3d 915 (“A trial court's findings of fact in a post-conviction proceeding will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a).”) We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Per Curiam.

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