Kruckenberg v. State, 2012 ND 162

Kruckenberg charged with delivery of methamphetamine in May 2007; State filed habitual offender notices on Jan 16, 2008 and amended Mar 12, 2008; convicted after bifurcated proceeding and habitual offender finding led to a 25-year sentence; this Court previously affirmed.
Kruckenberg appealed post-conviction relief denial; argued improper use of habitual offender statute and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Kruckenberg alleged five defects in the amended habitual offender notice: inadequate notice of March 11, 2008 amended notice, lack of authenticated prior judgments, no separate habitual offender hearing, no presentence investigation, and misstatement that prior convictions occurred in Stutsman County.
Trial court denied post-conviction relief and did not address habitual offender notice defects or ineffective assistance.
This Court reverses and remands to allow detailed findings of fact and law addressing the habitual offender notice deficiencies and related ineffective assistance issues.
Procedural posture: post-conviction relief proceedings governed by ND law, with review under clearly erroneous standard for factual findings and de novo review for mixed questions such as ineffective assistance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by not addressing habitual offender notice defects.	Kruckenberg alleges fatal defects in the amended notice and requests relief.	State concedes the order lacked addressing habitual offender notice but argues findings were sufficient.	Remanded for findings on habitual offender notice defects.
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the amended notice.	Counsel not objected to defects, prejudicing Kruckenberg.	No specific prejudice shown; standard Strickland analysis applies.	Remanded to evaluate ineffective assistance tied to compliance with §12.1-32-09.
Whether the trial court made sufficient findings to review the post-conviction claims.	Findings insufficient to review habitual offender compliance and related claims.	Findings were adequate for some issues but not for habitual offender notice.	Remand to require detailed findings of fact and law.
Whether the sentence violated ND law due to habitual offender notice defects.	Sentence improperly imposed due to defective notice and process.	Argues complied with statutory requirements; no clear error shown.	Remand to address constitutional/statutory compliance and potential relief.

Delvo v. State, 782 N.W.2d 72 (2010 ND 78) (post-conviction relief rules and standards re: civil procedure)
Foster v. State, 560 N.W.2d 194 (1997 ND 8) (clear standard for appellate review of findings; mixed questions")
Kamara v. State, 671 N.W.2d 811 (2003 ND 179) (clearly erroneous standard in post-conviction findings)
DeCoteau v. State, 608 N.W.2d 240 (2000 ND 44) (foundational review of factual support)
Murchison v. State, 799 N.W.2d 360 (2011 ND 126) (ineffective assistance framework and prejudice standard)
State v. Myers, 770 N.W.2d 713 (2009 ND 141) (ineffective assistance prejudice analysis)
State v. Skaro, 474 N.W.2d 711 (ND 1991) (general standards for post-conviction proceedings)