Pribyl v. StateNo. 20080185

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Terry Pribyl ("Pribyl") appeals from a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief.

[¶2] On September 19, 2005, Pribyl was charged with corruption of a minor. An attorney represented Pribyl. Initially, Pribyl pled not guilty. The district court held a change of plea hearing on March 15, 2006, and Pribyl pled guilty. On July 21, 2006, the district court sentenced Pribyl to a term of five years with all five years suspended for three years.

[¶3] On February 19, 2008, Pribyl, acting pro se, filed an application for post-conviction relief asserting he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court appointed new counsel to represent Pribyl. The district court held a post-conviction relief hearing on June 18, 2008. The district court determined Pribyl received effective assistance of counsel; therefore, it denied Pribyl's petition for post-conviction relief. Pribyl appeals.

[¶4] On appeal, Pribyl asserts the district court improperly denied his petition for post-conviction relief on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, because: his counsel did not conduct a sufficient investigation; his counsel did not communicate all of the information of the case to him; he maintained his innocence to his counsel, yet his counsel advised him to plead guilty; and his counsel did not properly advise him on the issue of his previous conviction. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

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