Truelove v. State, 945 N.W.2d 272

Michael Truelove was charged with terrorizing, aggravated assault, gross sexual imposition (GSI), and interfering with an emergency telephone call.
At trial defense counsel told the jury Truelove would testify and conceded Truelove struck the victim; Truelove then testified and admitted striking the victim. The jury convicted on all counts.
On direct appeal Truelove challenged the GSI conviction; the conviction was affirmed. He then filed a post-conviction relief application alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
At the post-conviction hearing both Truelove and his trial counsel testified; counsel and Truelove had multiple pretrial meetings and agreed on a strategy to admit the strike to bolster credibility and defeat the GSI charge.
Truelove claimed counsel violated his right to control the defense objective (counsel conceded the strike), coerced him into testifying, and failed to communicate effectively. The district court dismissed the petition and the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Truelove's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether counsel violated Truelove's right to decide the objective of the defense by conceding he struck the victim	Counsel improperly conceded guilt on aggravated assault (invoking McCoy) and overrode Truelove's objective of maintaining innocence	Truelove agreed with a defense strategy to admit the strike to preserve credibility and defeat the GSI charge; concession was trial strategy	Distinguishable from McCoy; Truelove agreed to strategy, so counsel's concession was a permissible tactical decision and not ineffective assistance
Whether counsel coerced Truelove into testifying, violating his personal right to testify	Counsel announced Truelove would testify, effectively forcing him to take the stand	Truelove repeatedly told counsel he wanted the jury to hear his side; counsel believed Truelove voluntarily chose to testify	No coercion found; factual finding that Truelove wanted to testify was not clearly erroneous; counsel not ineffective
Whether there was a lack of effective communication between Truelove and counsel	Disagreements about evidence and discovery timing showed poor communication and ineffective assistance	Counsel met many times (≈13), provided discovery timely, and discussed strategy; disputes were tactical	Court found adequate communication; factual finding not clearly erroneous; counsel not ineffective

McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (2018) (a defendant who expressly asserts the objective to maintain innocence cannot have counsel concede guilt over that objection)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
Edwardson v. State, 936 N.W.2d 376 (N.D. 2019) (explains standard of review and application of Strickland in North Dakota post-conviction proceedings)
State v. Truelove, 904 N.W.2d 342 (N.D. 2017) (direct-appeal decision affirming Truelove's convictions)
Noorlun v. State, 736 N.W.2d 477 (N.D. 2007) (trial strategy and tactics are attorney decisions and generally not second-guessed on appeal)