MCDERMOTT v. STATE (2026)

[¶1] Travis McDermott appeals from an order denying his application for postconviction relief. The district court subsequently entered a consistent judgment. We treat McDermott's appeal as an appeal from the subsequently entered judgment. Broadwell v. State, 2014 ND 6, ¶ 4, 841 N.W.2d 750; Steinbach v. State, 2003 ND 46, ¶ 1 n.1, 658 N.W.2d 355.

[¶2] A jury convicted McDermott of manslaughter and reckless endangerment. This Court affirmed the criminal judgment on direct appeal. State v. McDermott, 2025 ND 39, 17 N.W.3d 583. McDermott then filed an application for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After an evidentiary hearing at which McDermott was the sole witness, the district court denied the application. The court denied some of McDermott's ineffective assistance of counsel arguments on the ground of misuse of process under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-12(2)(a). The court then concluded McDermott failed to establish either prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Because the court's finding McDermott failed to show ineffective assistance of counsel resolves all of McDermott's arguments, we do not address the court's dismissal of portions of McDermott's claims on the ground of misuse of process.

[¶3] To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, McDermott had the burden to show both that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, there is a reasonable probability the result of the proceeding would have been different. Urrabazo v. State, 2024 ND 67, ¶¶ 6, 13, 5 N.W.3d 521. “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Rademacher v. State, 2025 ND 137, ¶ 7, 23 N.W.3d 915 (quoting Hunter v. State, 2020 ND 224, ¶ 13, 949 N.W.2d 841). “[C]ourts need not address both prongs of the Strickland test and are encouraged to resolve a case by addressing only one prong, if possible.” Brooks v. State, 2026 ND 85, ¶ 2, 34 N.W.3d 119; see also Hunter, ¶ 13 (“If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.” (quoting Rourke v. State, 2018 ND 137, ¶ 6, 912 N.W.2d 311)). Findings of fact made in a postconviction relief proceeding are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. Urrabazo, ¶ 6.

[¶4] After a hearing, the district court found McDermott failed to show he was prejudiced by his trial attorney's performance. The court noted the entirety of McDermott's testimony related to whether his trial counsel was ineffective. The court explained “McDermott mainly relies on conclusory or speculative statements, and some of his allegations are contradicted by the record.” The court then found that “the limited nature of McDermott's testimony at the evidentiary hearing does not establish a sufficient showing of prejudice to show that the result of the trial would have been different but for trial counsel's alleged underperformance.” The court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and the court did not err in determining McDermott failed to establish the second prong of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We summarily affirm the order and judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Per Curiam.

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