Ratliff v. State, 2016 ND 149

Background

In April 2012 Ratliff and two co-defendants were tried and convicted by a jury of multiple offenses arising from a home invasion; this Court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal in State v. Ratliff.
In October 2014 Ratliff filed a postconviction relief application raising multiple claims including ineffective assistance of counsel and a claim that he waived his preliminary hearing based on a prosecutor’s promise not to file a habitual-offender notice.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing (testimony from Ratliff, his sister, trial counsel, and the prosecutor) and denied the application in a written 10‑page decision.
Ratliff appealed the denial; the Supreme Court reviewed factual findings for clear error and legal questions de novo where applicable.
The court found the district court’s factual findings supported by the record and rejected Ratliff’s ineffective-assistance and prosecutorial-promise claims.

Issues

Issue	Ratliff's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance — failure to investigate/call alibi witnesses	Ratliff says he told counsel about alibi witnesses (sister and another) who would place him elsewhere; counsel failed to investigate or call them	Counsel testified Ratliff never advised him of alibi witnesses; had he been told he would have investigated; district court found Ratliff did not inform counsel	Denied — district court’s finding that counsel lacked notice of alibi witnesses is not clearly erroneous; no deficient performance shown
Ineffective assistance — failure to move to sever joinder of co-defendants	Ratliff contends counsel should have moved to sever or opposed joinder	Counsel believed severance unlikely to succeed and co-defendants did not testify against Ratliff; failure to file motion alone is not per se ineffective	Denied — no deficient performance or prejudice shown
Ineffective assistance — failure to preserve/argue jury extraneous-audio issue (Abell)	Ratliff says counsel failed to rely on Abell for jury’s use of an audio recording not admitted into evidence	Counsel had cited Abell in briefing and case was not on point; issue was previously raised on direct appeal	Denied — issue fully determined in previous proceeding; no relief
Prosecutorial promise re: habitual-offender notice and waiver of preliminary hearing	Ratliff alleges prosecutor promised not to file habitual-offender notice if he waived the preliminary hearing	Prosecutor testified promise was limited — to refrain from filing before the preliminary hearing pending plea negotiations, not an absolute waiver; documentary evidence supports this	Denied — district court found no promise to forego filing altogether; finding not clearly erroneous

Key Cases Cited

Syvertson v. State, 699 N.W.2d 855 (N.D. 2005) (standard of review for postconviction findings and legal questions)
Greywind v. State, 689 N.W.2d 390 (N.D. 2004) (postconviction review and clear-error standard)
Chisholm v. State, 871 N.W.2d 595 (N.D. 2015) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
Roth v. State, 735 N.W.2d 882 (N.D. 2007) (ineffective assistance framework)
Ernst v. State, 683 N.W.2d 891 (N.D. 2004) (failure to file pretrial motions not automatically ineffective assistance)
State v. Wamre, 599 N.W.2d 268 (N.D. 1999) (joint trials of co-defendants generally permissible)
State v. Abell, 383 N.W.2d 810 (N.D. 1986) (jury’s unauthorized use of materials may affect verdict)
State v. Booth, 861 N.W.2d 160 (N.D. 2015) (timeliness and reasonableness of notice filings)
State v. Ratliff, 849 N.W.2d 183 (N.D. 2014) (direct appeal affirming Ratliff’s convictions)