Palmer v. State (N.D. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Palmer v. State (N.D. 2012). Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Palmer v. State (nd, 2014-04-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Palmer v. State
N.D. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Palmer v. State , 2012 ND 237 , 824 N.W.2d 406; Palmer v. State , 2012 ND 98 , 816 N.W.2d 807. [¶2] On appeal, Palmer argues the district court abused its discretion in denying his post-conviction relief application when he has never been afforded an opportunity for a hearing to establish whether his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel and his first post-conviction counsel ineffectively represented him by missing a deadline which resulted in a dismissal of his initial post-conviction relief application.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Riak v. State (2×)
N.D. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Waslaski v. State, 2013 ND 70, ¶ 7 , 830 N.W.2d 228 ; Bay v. State, 2003 ND 183, ¶ 4 , 672 N.W.2d 270 ; see also Palmer v. State, 2012 ND 237, ¶¶ 5-9 , 824 N.W.2d 406 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Palmer
v.
State
20110344.
North Dakota Supreme Court.
Nov 27, 2012.
Published

Filed 11/27/12 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2012 ND 233

In the Interest of G.L.D.

Brian D. Grosinger,

Assistant State’s Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee

v.

G.L.D., Respondent and Appellant

No. 20120175

Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Brian D. Grosinger, Assistant State’s Attorney, 210 2nd Avenue NW, Mandan, ND 58554, for petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief.

Kent M. Morrow, 411 North 4th Street, P.O. Box 2155, Bismarck, ND 58502-

2155, for respondent and appellant; submitted on brief.

Interest of G.L.D.

No. 20120175

Per Curiam.

[¶1] G.L.D. appeals from a district court order denying his request for discharge from commitment as a sexually dangerous individual.  G.L.D. argues the State did not prove he is likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct and has serious difficulty controlling his behavior.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Mary Muehlen Maring

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom