CASPERS v. STATE (2026)

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Nicholas Cole CASPERS, Petitioner and Appellant v. STATE of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20260111

Decided: October 15, 2026

Eric P. Baumann, Minot, ND, for petitioner and appellant; on brief. Nicholas S. Samuelson, Assistant State's Attorney, Fargo, ND, for respondent and appellee; on brief.

[¶1] Nicholas Caspers appeals from a judgment denying his application for postconviction relief. He argues the district court erred in dismissing his claim that his 2022 and 2023 probation revocation sentences were illegal and in denying his claims that attorneys Philip Becher and Justin Vinje provided ineffective assistance of counsel.

[¶2] Caspers's illegal-sentence claim rests on the premise that the 2020 proceedings on the State's second petition to revoke probation resulted in a revocation. We rejected that premise in the appeal from the order partially denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. State v. Caspers, 2025 ND 1, ¶¶ 13-15, 16 N.W.3d 184. Because the claim was fully and finally determined in a previous proceeding, the district court did not err in dismissing it. N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-12(1).

[¶3] To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, an applicant must show counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Lindeman v. State, 2024 ND 228, ¶ 8, 14 N.W.3d 883. The district court's findings of fact will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. Belyeu v. State, 2024 ND 133, ¶ 6, 9 N.W.3d 648. Even assuming deficient performance, Caspers has not shown prejudice as to either attorney. The court found the written order on the second petition was consistent with its oral ruling at the August 2020 hearing, and that finding is not clearly erroneous. Because the hearing transcripts would have confirmed the written order, Caspers has not shown a reasonable probability that the result of the prior appeal would have been different had Becher ordered them. For the same reason, Caspers has not shown a reasonable probability that the order would have been different had Vinje challenged it.

[¶4] We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).

Per Curiam.

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

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network