Garten v. StateNo. 20100382

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Jeffrey M. Garten appeals the district court's judgment denying his application for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Garten argues the district court erred by denying his application because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Garten alleges his trial attorney failed to prepare and effectively argue necessary pre-trial motions; his trial attorney failed to conduct adequate independent investigations of DNA and fingerprint evidence; his trial attorney failed to interview potentially favorable witnesses; his trial attorney failed to prepare a cogent theory of defense; his trial attorney failed to provide appropriate legal advice about whether he should testify and how he should plead; his trial attorney failed to adequately research and prepare for the hearing on the motion for a new trial; his trial attorney failed to file a motion in limine to suppress his prior manslaughter conviction; and his appellate counsel failed to raise the issue of insufficiency of the evidence on appeal. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) because the district court's judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous.

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Dale V. Sandstrom
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Mary Muehlen Maring