State v. Schmidt, 2011 ND 238

Coppage was charged in 2006 with attempted murder; district court instructed the jury on the elements and treated aggravated assault as a lesser-included offense.
A pre-trial motion in limine to exclude testimony about prior domestic-violence incidents was granted; the jury nonetheless convicted Coppage of both attempted murder and aggravated assault.
On direct appeal, this Court upheld the conviction, rejecting the argument of evidentiary/instructional error and finding no logical inconsistency in the verdict.
Coppage filed a first post-conviction relief petition in 2009 alleging ineffective trial and appellate counsel, biased juror selection, and tainted scene; the district court denied relief.
In 2010 Coppage filed a second post-conviction relief petition asserting double jeopardy, improper impeachment evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and failure to reinstate jury deliberations; the court appointed counsel and then dismissed the petition as res judicata/misuse of process.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the effectiveness of Coppage’s post-conviction counsel and that an evidentiary hearing was required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly dismissed post-conviction relief on summary basis	Coppage contends genuine issues of material fact exist requiring an evidentiary hearing.	State argues no genuine issues and res judicata/misuse of process bar relief.	District court erred; remand for an evidentiary hearing.
Whether res judicata/misuse of process barred Coppage's claims	Coppage asserts ineffective post-conviction counsel excused failure to raise issues earlier.	State maintains claims barred by res judicata and misuse of process.	Issues may proceed; the court must evaluate with an evidentiary record.
Whether Coppage's claim of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel raises a genuine issue of material fact	Post-conviction counsel failed to develop record and to argue trial/appellate counsel's ineffectiveness.	Counsel's performance and strategy fall within reasonable professional norms; claims are insufficient as a matter of law.	Yes; raises genuine issue of material fact requiring an evidentiary hearing.

Henke v. State, 2009 ND 117 (ND) (summary dismissal standard for post-conviction relief; evidence required for genuine issues)
Ude v. State, 2009 ND 71 (ND) (proof-shifting framework for post-conviction claims)
Murchison v. State, 2003 ND 38 (ND) (misuse of process and procedural considerations in post-conviction relief)
Klose v. State, 2008 ND 143 (ND) (ineffective assistance standard and presumption of reasonableness; need for evidence of prejudice)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Johnson v. State, 2004 ND 130 (ND) (applies Strickland standard to post-conviction context)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (Supreme Court) (no constitutional right to counsel in state post-conviction proceedings)
Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (Supreme Court) (appellate strategy; avoid raising every colorable issue)
Wainwright v. Torna, 455 U.S. 586 (Supreme Court) (no constitutional right to counsel in post-conviction)
Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (Supreme Court) (no constitutional right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings)