Olsen v. State, 852 N.W.2d 372

Olsen pleaded guilty in 2007 to possession of visual sexual content; sentence deferred, two years of supervised probation; no registration advised.
In 2009, the guilty plea was withdrawn, the charge dismissed, and the file sealed under ND rule 32.1.
In 2009 and again in 2011 Olsen was charged with failure to register; 2009 charge dismissed for misapplication of deferral rule; Olsen registered thereafter through 2011.
In 2011 Olsen was convicted of class C felony failure to register; sentenced to one year in jail with 90 days suspended and one year probation; no direct appeal.
In 2013 Olsen moved for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance for not arguing the lack of guilt due to the withdrawn 2007 plea; State argued amendments made registration applicable even if deferred sentence; district court dismissed.
The Supreme Court affirmed, holding Olsen’s attorney was not deficient because the law was unsettled on the issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was counsel ineffective for failing to challenge guilt due to the withdrawn 2007 plea?	Olsen	State	No; law unsettled, no deficiency.
Is Olsen subject to registration despite deferred imposition of sentence under unsettled law?	Olsen	State	Unsettled; court not deficient for not raising.
Does 1995 amendment making registration applicable with deferred sentences resolve the issue in Olsen's favor?	Olsen	State	Not resolved in favor of Olsen; issue unsettled.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984) (two-pronged standard for ineffective assistance)
Kinsella v. State, 2013 ND 238 (North Dakota) (defendant bears burden in ineffective assistance; standards for review)
McMahon, 519 N.W.2d 621 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994) (unsettled law means no deficiency for not raising issue)
State v. Rubey, 2000 ND 119 (North Dakota) (court’s discretion and interpretation of registration statutes)
DeCoteau v. State, 608 N.W.2d 240 (North Dakota) (objective standard of reasonableness for counsel)