Brown v. State ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    IN THE OFFICE OF THE
    CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
    MAY 30, 2023
    STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
    IN THE SUPREME COURT
    STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
    
    2023 ND 105
    Orlando Joseph Brown,                                Petitioner and Appellant
    v.
    State of North Dakota,                              Respondent and Appellee
    No. 20220341
    Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central
    Judicial District, the Honorable M. Jason McCarthy, Judge.
    AFFIRMED.
    Per Curiam.
    Scott O. Diamond, Fargo, ND, for petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief.
    Andrew C. Eyre, Assistant State’s Attorney, and Muriel E. Rott, third-year law
    student, under the Rule on Limited Practice of Law by Law Students, Grand
    Forks, ND, for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief.
    Brown v. State
    No. 20220341
    Per Curiam.
    [¶1] Orlando Joseph Brown appeals from a district court order denying his
    application for post-conviction relief.
    [¶2] A jury convicted Brown of aggravated assault and two counts of gross
    sexual imposition. On direct appeal, Brown argued the district court abused
    its discretion by allowing the State to introduce N.D.R.Ev. 404(b) evidence, and
    this Court summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). State v. Brown,
    
    2020 ND 29
    , 
    938 N.W.2d 404
    .
    [¶3] On appeal, Brown argues the district court improperly denied his
    application for post-conviction relief because his trial counsel was ineffective
    for failing to move to strike two jurors for cause and thereafter failing to use a
    peremptory challenge to strike the same jurors.
    [¶4] “[A]n attorney’s actions during voir dire are considered matters of trial
    strategy.” Clark v. State, 
    2008 ND 234
    , ¶ 16, 
    758 N.W.2d 900
     (upholding district
    court’s finding defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel
    because counsel “failed to strike a juror”); see also Garcia v. State, 
    2004 ND 81
    ,
    ¶ 8, 
    678 N.W.2d 568
     (“An unsuccessful trial strategy does not make defense
    counsel’s assistance defective, and we will not second-guess counsel’s defense
    strategy through the distorting effects of hindsight.” (quoting Breding v. State,
    
    1998 ND 170
    , ¶ 9, 
    584 N.W.2d 493
    )).
    [¶5] We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
    [¶6] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
    Daniel J. Crothers
    Lisa Fair McEvers
    Jerod E. Tufte
    Douglas A. Bahr
    1
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20220341

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 5/30/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/30/2023