Dieterle v. Dieterle, 2013 ND 71

Steen appealed a district court order that summarily dismissed his post-conviction relief petition challenging probation revocation for a 2002 conviction and related 2008 pleas.
Steen asserted entitlement to credit for time served on the 2002 sentence.
Steen claimed the State violated his plea agreements and his due process rights.
Steen contended his North Carolina v. Alford plea was invalid.
Steen alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and disputed waivers related to a habitual offender hearing and a pre-sentence investigation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Credit for time served barred by res judicata	Steen argues he is entitled to time-served credit.	State contends claim is res judicata under Steen (2009).	Affirmed; credit time served barred by res judicata.
Alford plea withdrawal basis	Steen alleges basis to withdraw Alford plea.	State opposes withdrawal; transcript supports no basis.	Affirmed; no basis to withdraw Alford plea.
Habitual offender hearing protections	Steen seeks separate habitual offender hearing.	State argues hearing not required and issue meritless.	Affirmed; hearing not required, merit insufficient.
Pre-sentence investigation requirement	Steen argues need for pre-sentence report.	State contends no requirement under statute.	Affirmed; no pre-sentence report required.
Ineffective assistance prejudice	Steen claims counsel prejudice affected outcome.	State asserts lack of demonstrated prejudice.	Affirmed; no proof of prejudice; no evidentiary issues on record.

State v. Steen, 2009 ND 30 (ND 2009) (res judicata precludes duplicate time-served credit claims)
State v. Cain, 2011 ND 213 (ND 2011) (habitu al offender hearing merit review not required where appropriate)
Heckelsmiller v. State, 2004 ND 191 (ND 2004) (prejudice requirement for ineffective assistance claim)
State v. Bender, 1998 ND 72 (ND 1998) (summary disposition requires evidentiary support)