Atkins v. State, 2017 ND 290

In 2015 Atkins pled guilty to gross sexual imposition; sentenced to 20 years with 5 years suspended and 10 years supervised probation. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
Atkins filed a post-conviction petition in March 2016 claiming ineffective assistance of counsel; initial petition was dismissed for failure to timely file a brief.
Atkins refiled an identical petition in September 2016, submitted a supplemental brief in March 2017 alleging multiple defects in counsel’s performance and requesting an evidentiary hearing.
The State moved for summary dismissal in April 2017 and the district court scheduled an evidentiary hearing; Atkins did not file affidavits or other competent, admissible evidence in response.
On May 5, 2017 the district court granted the State’s motion and summarily dismissed Atkins’s petition; the court’s order contained no detailed findings.
Atkins appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed, holding Atkins was put to his proof by the State’s motion and failed to produce competent evidence raising a material factual issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Atkins was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance claims	Atkins argued scheduling an evidentiary hearing relieved him of producing evidence before the hearing	State argued the motion for summary dismissal shifted the minimal burden to Atkins to produce competent evidence before a hearing	Court held Atkins was not entitled to a hearing because he failed to produce competent, admissible evidence after being put to his proof
Whether summary dismissal was permissible without detailed findings	Atkins implied the district court’s unexplained order was insufficient	State relied on rule permissibility and record showing no factual dispute	Court held lack of articulated findings did not bar summary dismissal under the rules
Whether Atkins met his burden after the State’s summary disposition motion	Atkins relied on factual assertions in his brief without affidavits or admissible proof	State argued absence of evidentiary support justified dismissal	Court held Atkins failed to meet the minimal evidentiary burden required to avoid summary dismissal
Whether prior appellate affirmation affects post-conviction claims	Atkins sought to relitigate counsel effectiveness post-conviction despite direct-appeal affirmance	State maintained post-conviction standard and burden apply regardless of prior appeal	Court applied post-conviction standards and affirmed dismissal for lack of evidentiary support

Parizek v. State, 711 N.W.2d 178 (N.D. 2006) (standard for reviewing summary denial of post-conviction relief and entitlement to evidentiary hearing)
Steinbach v. State, 658 N.W.2d 355 (N.D. 2003) (applicants are put to proof by State’s motion and must provide competent evidence to obtain a hearing)
Chase v. State, 899 N.W.2d 280 (N.D. 2017) (applicant bears burden to establish grounds for post-conviction relief)
Ude v. State, 764 N.W.2d 419 (N.D. 2009) (affirming summary dismissal where petitioner failed to present competent evidence after being put to proof)
State v. Atkins, 873 N.W.2d 676 (N.D. 2016) (direct-appeal decision affirming Atkins’s conviction)