Plaisimond v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT JANUARY 6, 2022 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2022 ND 14 Michaelson Plaisimond, Petitioner and Appellant v. State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee No. 20210215 Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bonnie L. Storbakken, Judge. AFFIRMED. Per Curiam. Samuel A. Gereszek, Grand Forks, ND, for for petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief. Julie A. Lawyer, State’s Attorney, Bismarck, ND, for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief. Plaisimond v. State No. 20210215 Per curiam. [¶1] Michaelson Plaisimond appeals from a district court order and judgment denying his application for postconviction relief. Plaisimond claims the court erred in denying his application because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Plaisimond contends his trial attorney failed to advise him on testifying about prior bad acts and the potential ramifications. Following a hearing the court found Plaisimond failed to establish the first prong of the Strickland test that his trial attorney’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. The court also found that even if Plaisimond met the first prong, he did not demonstrate he was prejudiced by the alleged deficient performance. [¶2] The district court did not clearly err in finding Plaisimond did not prove ineffective assistance of counsel and denying his application for postconviction relief. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). [¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte 1
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
