Murray v. State

Antoine Marquis Murray, Petitioner and Appellant
v.
State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20150124

Appeal from the District Court of Bowman County, Southwest Judicial District, the Honorable Zane Anderson, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Scott O. Diamond, 210 Broadway, Suite 401B, Fargo, N.D. 58102, for petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief.
Stephanie L. Pretzer, State's Attorney, 104 First Street NW, Suite 10, Bowman, N.D. 58623, for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief.

Murray v. StateNo. 20150124

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Antoine Murray appeals from a district court order denying him post-conviction relief. Murray claims he is entitled to post-conviction relief because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. He argues the district court erred in summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief, because his verified petition was sufficient to overcome the State's motion for summary disposition and the district court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7). See Ennis v. Berg, 509 N.W.2d 33, 37 (N.D. 1993) (while a verified complaint may count as competent evidence, a petitioner cannot rely solely on the complaint's conclusory statements if they do not create any issues of material fact); Dunn v. State, 2006 ND 26, ¶ 12, 709 N.W.2d 1 (if a petitioner fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact, summary disposition will be appropriate).

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Dale V. Sandstrom
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Carol Ronning Kapsner