KROGSTAD v. STATE (2023)

[¶1] Jeffrey Krogstad appeals from an order dismissing his application for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. He argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney did not demand a speedy trial or secure an independent DNA test. He also asserts that the district court erred by failing to analyze whether he was prejudiced by counsel's representation. We conclude the district court's findings regarding the first prong, whether counsel's conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, are not clearly erroneous. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). Broadwell v. State, 2014 ND 6, ¶ 7, 841 N.W.2d 750 (“Courts need not address both elements of the ineffective assistance of counsel test, and if a court can dispose of the case by addressing only one element, it is encouraged to do so.”).

Per Curiam.

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