[¶ 1] Daniel Evan Wacht appealed from a district court order summarily dismissing his application for postconviction relief. We conclude the court did not err in summarily dismissing Wacht’s claims for ineffective assistance of counsel and for relief based on newly discovered evidence. We affirm.
I
[¶ 2] Wacht was convicted by a jury in 2012 of the murder of Kurt Johnson. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. His conviction was affirmed in
State v. Wacht,
[¶ 3] Wacht applied for postconviction relief claiming he received ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence showed a State’s witness fabricated his trial testimony. Wacht claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney was unable to remove a juror who was distantly related to Johnson through marriage. Wacht also claimed his attorney failed to object to the admission of a pair of latex gloves at trial.
[¶ 4] Wacht claimed Jason Bolstad, a State’s witness, fabricated information and falsely testified at Wacht’s trial. To support this claim, Wacht included affidavits from Shane Patrick Miller and George H. Paquette, who were incarcerated with Bol-stad at the James River Correctional Center when Bolstad testified. Miller’s affidavit stated Bolstad told him he made up most of his testimony, because “[Wacht] was going to get convicted anyway, so I came up with some bullshit story to help myself and my family.” Paquette’s affidavit stated Bolstad told him:
“That he was in prison for drug trafficking, and that the Federal Government might also indict him.” I told him that I was in a similar situation, he said to me; “That I could probably get help from the state’s attorney, all I had to do was testify against someone.” I responded to him that not only did I not know anyone to testify against, and that I wouldn’t do so even if I did. Jason Bolstad persisted by saying; “That there are plenty of other inmates around here with open cases, you just had to get a little ... information to make yourself credible, and then make the rest up, that the. state’s attorney will tell you what they need you to say and how to answer all the questions anyway.” He added; “These people are going to get convicted anyway, so you might as well help yourself out.”
II
[¶ 6] Wacht argues the district court erred in summarily dismissing his application for posteonviction relief. Post-conviction relief is governed by N.D.C.C. ch. 29-32.1. “Post-conviction relief proceedings are civil in nature and governed by the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Haag v. State,
A
[¶ 7] Wacht made two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in his application for postconviction relief. His first claim alleged his trial attorney was ineffective in failing to remove a juror who was related to the victim, Kurt Johnson. His second claim alleged his attorney failed to object to the admission of a pair of latex gloves at trial. In its answer to Wacht’s application, the State argued Wacht raised both of those issues relating to his ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal and they were rejected by this Court. The district court summarily dismissed Wacht’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in part on the basis of res judicata. After carefully reviewing the record on appeal, we conclude the issues relating to Wacht’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims were raised on direct appeal and are subject to res judicata.
[¶ 8] Under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-12(1), “[a]n application for postconviction relief may be denied on the ground that the same claim or claims were fully and finally determined in a previous proceeding.” “Consequently, when claims have been previously raised on direct appeal they cannot be raised again in a subsequent post-conviction application.”
Clark v. State,
[¶ 9] Wacht raised both of the issues relating to his current ineffective assistance of counsel claims in his direct appeal. We specifically discussed and rejected Wacht’s claim that the district court erred in refusing to disqualify a juror who was distantly related to Johnson through marriage.
Wacht,
B
[¶ 10] Wacht’s final claim for relief in his application for postconviction relief relates to newly discovered evidence, specifically, two affidavits claiming Jason Bolstad fabricated his trial testimony. The affidavit of Shane Patrick Miller states Bolstad made up most of the story he told at Wacht’s trial. George H. Pa-quette’s affidavit states Bolstad discussed obtaining leniency by testifying against someone with help from the state’s attorney.
[¶ 11] A district court may grant postconviction relief when “[e]vi-dence, not previously presented and heard, exists requiring vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice.” N.D.C.C. § 29 — 32.1—01(l)(e). This statutory ground for postconviction relief is similar to a request for new trial based on newly discovered evidence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 33.
Syvertson v. State,
[¶ 12] The district court discussed Wacht’s claim about the newly discovered evidence:
The newly obtained evidence presented by Wacht consists of affidavits from George H. Pacquette [sic] and Shane Patrick Miller. Miller’s affidavit is a bare assertion that the State’s witness Jason Bolstad, told Miller that Bolstad had made up the story he had told at Wacht’s trial, or at least “most of it.” Pacquette’s [sic] affidavit is less specific, claiming that Bolstad had laid out a general strategy of obtaining leniency by identifying another inmate with an open case, collecting some information about it, and make up the rest of the story with help from the state’s attorney. Pacquette [sic] makes no specific claim that Bolstad said he’d fabricated anything in his testimony in the Wacht trial. Several key points of Bolstad’s testimony at trial were corroborated by independently physical evidence. In addition, Bolstad was impeached by Wacht’s trial counsel on the issue of whether he had a motive to testify in order to help himself obtain leniency. Wacht’s newly obtained evidence goes solely to impeachment of one of the state’s witnesses, a witness whose testimony was corroborated by physical evidence. Bolstad’s motive to testify was explored in cross examination. Such testimony is unlikely to change the result of the original trial as the weight and quality of the newly discovered evidence is not likely to have resulted in an acquittal.
Based on the petition, briefs, affidavits and exhibits filed in this matter, Petitioner has failed to present competent evidence raising a genuine issue of fact as to any of the claims.
[¶ 13] The district court concluded Wacht’s newly discovered evidence regard
Wacht was the last person seen with Johnson. DNA evidence that could not exclude Kurt Johnson was found on a spent 9mm casing that was fired from Wacht’s gun, the cushion found in Wacht’s laundry room, Wacht’s sofa matching the cushion, a boot in Wacht’s home, the exterior of a pair of gloves, a sponge in a garbage bag in Wacht’s laundry room, and a belt suspected to be Johnson’s. Wacht’s DNA was found on the inside of the boots and the gloves. Johnson’s decapitated head was found buried in the crawl space underneath Wacht’s home. The jacket of a 9mm bullet was removed from the wound in Johnson’s head. The bullet could have been fired from Wacht’s firearm, and was consistent with ammunition that Wacht possessed for his 9mm Glock pistol. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict Wacht of murder.
Wacht,
[¶ 14] Wacht’s conviction was not based upon the testimony of a single witness. Bolstad was one of over 30 witnesses for the State who testified at trial.' As the district court rioted, the affidavits of Miller and Paquette lack specificity regarding what Bolstad fabricated in his trial testimony. Additionally, the State provided examples of Bolstad’s testimony being corroborated by other independent evidence. Bolstad’s trial testimony about Wacht’s involvement with the Aryan Brotherhood and shooting guns at a tree near the Cooperstown cemetery with Wacht was supported by physical evidence. Bolstad also made statements in his pretrial interview with the state bureau of criminal investigation that were independently verified.
[¶ 15] Generally, if an applicant seeking postconviction relief- presents newly discovered evidence that involves a key witness or is material to the issues at trial, an evidentiary hearing may be necessary to develop a complete record for appellate review. In this case, however, the newly discovered evidence was unlikely to change the result of Wacht’s trial. In addition to the “overwhelming” evidence against Wacht, independent physical evidence suggested much of Bolstad’s testimony was not fabricated. We conclude Wacht failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on his claim of newly discovered evidence. The district court did not err in summarily dismissing Wacht’s application for postcon-viction relief.
Ill
[¶ 16] The order summarily dismissing Wacht’s application for postconviction relief is affirmed.