Munzal v. State

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT FEBRUARY 3, 2021 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2021 ND 14 Youhana Hakim Munzal, Petitioner and Appellant v. State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee No. 20200216 Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Stephannie N. Stiel, Judge. AFFIRMED. Per Curiam. Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, N.D., for petitioner and appellant. Joshua J. Traiser, Assistant State’s Attorney, Fargo, N.D., for respondent and appellee. 1 Munzal v. State No. 20200216 Per Curiam. [¶1] Youhana Hakim Munzal appeals from an order denying his application for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Munzal argues the district court erred by denying his application for post-conviction relief and finding he failed to establish he received ineffective assistance of counsel from his trial attorney. He contends his attorney did not properly explain the immigration consequences of pleading guilty and, but for that error, he would not have pled guilty. We conclude the evidence supports the district court’s finding that Munzal failed to establish that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s alleged deficient performance. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). See Bahtiraj v. State, 2013 ND 240, ¶¶ 16-17, 840 N.W.2d 605 (stating that to establish prejudice, something more is required than the defendant’s subjective, self-serving statement that, with competent advice about the immigration consequences, he would not have pled guilty; and discussing factors for the district court to consider in determining whether a defendant would have decided not to plead guilty and insisted instead on going to trial). [¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte 1