McGinnis v. State , 2023 ND 211 ( 2023 )

FILED
IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
NOVEMBER 9, 2023
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2023 ND 211Neil Adam McGinnis, Petitioner and Appellant
v.
State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
No. 20230119
Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial
District, the Honorable James S. Hill, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Leo P. O’Day, Fargo, N.D., for petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief.
Robert N. Togni, Assistant State’s Attorney, Bismarck, N.D., for respondent
and appellee; submitted on brief.
McGinnis v. State
No. 20230119
Per Curiam.
[¶1] Neil McGinnis appeals from a district court order denying his petition
for postconviction relief. On appeal, he argues the district court erred when it
found that he made no coherent argument as to why a parole officer’s testimony
was perjured and that his attack on the officer’s credibility was made without
any admissible supporting evidence. Findings of fact made in a postconviction
relief proceeding are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.
Bridges v. State, 2021 ND 232, ¶ 5, 968 N.W.2d 188. After a full review of the
record, we conclude the district court’s findings are not clearly erroneous. We
summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
Douglas A. Bahr
1