State
v.
Steen
v.
Steen
Per Curiam.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Randal R. Steen, pro se, North Dakota State Penitentiary, P.O. Box 5521, Bismarck, N.D. 58506-5521; submitted on brief.
Cynthia M. Feland, Assistant State's Attorney, 514 E. Thayer, Bismarck, N.D. 58501-4413; submitted on brief.
Per Curiam.
Per Curiam.
[¶1] Randal Steen appeals from a trial court's order denying his motion for a new trial. Steen argues the trial court should have granted him a new trial because he is actually innocent of the charges for which he was convicted. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Steen's motion for a new trial. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Mary Muehlen Maring
Daniel J. Crothers
Dale V. Sandstrom
Carol Ronning Kapsner