from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast
Central Judicial District, the Honorable Debbie Gordon
C. Ringsak, for petitioner and appellant.
Carmell F. Mattison, Assistant State's Attorney, for
respondent and appellee.
VandeWalle, Chief Justice.
1] Allen Ratliff appealed from an order dismissing his
application for postconviction relief. We affirm, because the
district court's decision denying the application is
based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous.
2] A jury found Ratliff and two others guilty of robbery,
burglary, two counts of aggravated assault, theft of
property, and felonious restraint in connection with an April
2012 home invasion in Grand Forks. This Court affirmed the
convictions in State v. Ratliff, 2014 ND 156, 849
N.W.2d 183. In October 2014, Ratliff filed an application for
postconviction relief alleging numerous grounds, including
ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing during
which Ratliff, his sister, his trial attorney, and the
prosecutor testified, the district court in a 10-page
decision denied the application.
3] Ratliff argues the district court erred in denying his
application for postconviction relief.
4] In Syvertson v. State, 2005 ND 128, ¶ 4, 699
N.W.2d 855, we described the standard for reviewing denials
of applications for postconviction relief:
Post-conviction relief proceedings are civil in nature and
are governed by the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure. In
post-conviction relief proceedings, a district court's
findings of fact will not be disturbed unless they are
clearly erroneous under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a). A finding of fact
is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of
the law, if it is not supported by the evidence, or if,
although there is some evidence to support it, a reviewing
court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been made. Questions of law are fully reviewable
on appeal of a post-conviction proceeding.
(quoting Greywind v. State, 2004 ND 213, ¶ 5,
689 N.W.2d 390).
5] Ratliff argues the district court should have granted his
application for postconviction relief because his trial