Saucedo v. State , 2021 ND 47 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
    IN THE OFFICE OF THE
    CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
    MARCH 24, 2021
    STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
    IN THE SUPREME COURT
    STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
    
    2021 ND 47
    Joe Ramon Saucedo,                                 Petitioner and Appellant
    v.
    State of North Dakota,                             Respondent and Appellee
    No. 20200265
    Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central
    Judicial District, the Honorable Donald Hager, Judge.
    AFFIRMED.
    Per Curiam.
    Laura C. Ringsak, Bismarck, ND, for petitioner and appellant.
    Carmell F. Mattison, Assistant State’s Attorney, Grand Forks, ND, for
    respondent and appellee.
    Saucedo v. State
    No. 20200265
    Per Curiam.
    [¶1] Joe Saucedo appealed from an order denying his second application for
    post-conviction relief. Saucedo’s first application for post-conviction relief
    alleged his trial counsel was ineffective. The district court denied his
    application, and we summarily affirmed. Saucedo v. State, 
    2018 ND 2
    , 
    905 N.W.2d 562
    .
    [¶2] In his second application, Saucedo argued his post-conviction counsel
    provided ineffective assistance. He also argued his trial attorney provided
    ineffective assistance because the attorney did not participate in or prepare for
    a presentence investigation interview.
    [¶3] On appeal, Saucedo argues the district court erred when it denied his
    second application. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
    Kalmio v. State, 
    2018 ND 182
    , ¶ 18, 
    915 N.W.2d 655
     (“[D]istrict courts are
    required to dismiss an applicant’s claims of ineffective assistance of post-
    conviction relief counsel in a Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act
    proceeding.”); Jensen v. State, 
    2004 ND 200
    , ¶ 9, 
    688 N.W.2d 374
     (“Post-
    conviction proceedings are not intended to allow defendants multiple
    opportunities to raise the same or similar issues, and defendants who
    inexcusably fail to raise all of their claims in a single post-conviction
    proceeding misuse the post-conviction process by initiating a subsequent
    application raising issues that could have been raised in the earlier
    proceeding.”).
    [¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
    Gerald W. VandeWalle
    Daniel J. Crothers
    Lisa Fair McEvers
    Jerod E. Tufte
    1
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20200265

Citation Numbers: 2021 ND 47

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 3/24/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/24/2021