MUNZAL v. STATE (2021)

[¶1] Youhana Hakim Munzal appeals from an order denying his application for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Munzal argues the district court erred by denying his application for post-conviction relief and finding he failed to establish he received ineffective assistance of counsel from his trial attorney. He contends his attorney did not properly explain the immigration consequences of pleading guilty and, but for that error, he would not have pled guilty. We conclude the evidence supports the district court's finding that Munzal failed to establish that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel's alleged deficient performance. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). See Bahtiraj v. State, 2013 ND 240, ¶¶ 16-17, 840 N.W.2d 605 (stating that to establish prejudice, something more is required than the defendant's subjective, self-serving statement that, with competent advice about the immigration consequences, he would not have pled guilty; and discussing factors for the district court to consider in determining whether a defendant would have decided not to plead guilty and insisted instead on going to trial).

Per Curiam.

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte