Heywood v. State ( 2023 )

FILED
IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
DECEMBER 28, 2023
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2023 ND 244Paxton Benjamin Heywood, Petitioner and Appellant
v.
State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
No. 20230223
Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial
District, the Honorable Pamela A. Nesvig, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Laura C. Ringsak, Bismarck, ND, for petitioner and appellant; submitted on
brief.
Anna A. Argenti, Assistant State’s Attorney, Bismarck, ND, for respondent and
appellee; submitted on brief.
Heywood v. State
No. 20230223
Per Curiam.
[¶1] Paxton Heywood appeals from an order denying his application for post-
conviction relief. Heywood argues the district court erred in denying his post-
conviction relief application. He claims he received ineffective assistance of
counsel because his trial counsel failed to discredit a witness, failed to call an
expert witness, and failed to ensure a witness testified at trial. After a hearing,
at which Heywood’s trial counsel testified, the court found Heywood’s trial
counsel made trial strategy decisions and his representation did not fall below
an objective standard of reasonableness. The court also held Heywood failed to
establish a reasonable probability that, but for the alleged errors of counsel,
the results of the proceeding would have been different in this case.
[¶2] We conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding Heywood did
not prove his counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness. Garcia v. State, 2004 ND 81, ¶ 8, 678 N.W.2d 568 (quoting
Breding v. State, 1998 ND 170, ¶ 9, 584 N.W.2d 493) (“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.”). We need not address the second element of Heywood’s ineffective
assistance of counsel claim. Broadwell v. State, 2014 ND 6, ¶ 7, 841 N.W.2d
750 (“Courts need not address both elements of the ineffective assistance of
counsel test, and if a court can dispose of the case by addressing only one
element, it is encouraged to do so.”). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P.
35.1(a)(2).
[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
Douglas A. Bahr
1