Milliron v. StateNo. 20110223

Per curiam.

[¶1] Casey Jake Milliron appeals a district court judgment summarily denying his application for postconviction relief and denying his request for appointed postconviction counsel. In his application, Milliron argued he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney allowed him to plead guilty to charges under an invalid interim final rule criminalizing synthetic marijuana. We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) because the final rule and not an interim final rule was in effect on the date the complaint alleged Milliron possessed synthetic marijuana. Because Milliron's grounds for relief are without merit, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Milliron's request for appointed postconviction counsel. We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

[¶2] Milliron also argues his case should be remanded for the clerk of district court to notify Milliron of the availability of postconviction counsel. Although the clerk did not notify Milliron of the availability of counsel, Milliron filed a request for appointed counsel with the district court. We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7) because Milliron had actual knowledge of the availability of postconviction counsel. See Crumley v. State, 2000 ND 110, ¶¶ 5-7, 611 N.W.2d 165.

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