Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Kyle R. Sanchez, Petitioner and Appellant v. State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
[¶1] Kyle Sanchez appeals from a judgment denying his second application for postconviction relief, brought after this Court summarily affirmed the denial of his first application. Sanchez v. State, 2024 ND 214, ¶ 2, 14 N.W.3d 65. In this application, Sanchez argues his appellate attorney was ineffective in advising him to voluntarily dismiss the direct appeal of his criminal conviction.
[¶2] To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, an applicant must satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test by showing: (1) counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) the applicant 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 held no presumption of prejudice arises in cases where counsel voluntarily dismisses an existing appeal, in contrast “to that narrow set of cases where counsel fails to perfect a requested appeal.” Middleton v. State, 2014 ND 144, ¶ 20, 849 N.W.2d 196. The court found that counsel consulted with Sanchez about pursuing both a direct appeal and an application for postconviction relief, explained both options and the likelihood of success of each, and after the consultation Sanchez decided to voluntarily dismiss the direct appeal. The court concluded that Sanchez had not satisfied either prong of the Strickland test.
[¶3] Upon review of the record, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in its findings of fact. See, e.g., Urrabazo v. State, 2024 ND 67, ¶ 6, 5 N.W.3d 521 (setting forth the standard of review for postconviction proceedings). We further conclude the court did not err in determining Sanchez failed to establish that his counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under the first prong of the Strickland test. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
[¶4] Lisa Fair McEvers, C.J.
Jerod E. Tufte
Jon J. Jensen
Douglas A. Bahr
Mark A. Friese
Per Curiam.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 20260022
Decided: June 25, 2026
Court: Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)