[¶ 1] Damon White Bird appeals an order denying his application for post-conviction relief. White Bird argues the district court erred dismissing his application because he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. We affirm the order because the district court’s findings of fact were supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
I
[¶ 2] In 2013 the State charged White Bird with attempted murder, a class A felony; two counts of felonious restraint, class C felonies; tampering with physical evidence, a class A misdemeanor; and aggravated assault, a class C felony. White Bird represented himself at trial with limited assistance of standby counsel. A jury found White Bird guilty on all five counts. Represented by counsel, White Bird appealed the criminal judgment, arguing he was not competent to waive his right to counsel at trial. In 2015 this Court affirmed the criminal judgment, concluding White Bird was competent to waive his right to counsel.
State v. White Bird,
[¶ 3] White Bird applied for post-conviction relief arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied his application, finding White
II
[¶4] White Bird argues he is entitled to post-conviction relief because he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. We will, as the district court did, assume without deciding that the Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act in N.D.C.C. ch. 29-32.1 applies to direct appeal appellate counsel. A district court’s findings of fact in a post-conviction relief proceeding will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a).
Tweed v. State,
[¶ 5] To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel "White Bird’s burden was twofold. First, White Bird needed to show his counsel’s performance was defective.
State v. McLain,
[¶ 6] The district court heard testimony that White Bird’s appellate counsel represented individuals in state and federal appeals for over 35 years and in approximately 80 cases, of which 60 eases were criminal appeals. White Bird’s appellate counsel testified he studied the entire record in this case and formulated what he believed to be the most effective argument to make to the North Dakota Supreme Court. White Bird’s appellate counsel testified in his experience it is more effective to “identify just a handful of issues, maybe two or three issues rather than trying to take a shotgun approach.” White Bird presented no evidence that this strategy fell outside the wide range of reasonable professional assistance or is contrary to prevailing professional norms.
[¶ 8] The district court denied White Bird’s post-conviction relief,- finding that he.failed to establish either that his appellate counsel’s representation was objectively unreasonable or defective and that the result of the appeal would have been different but for his counsel’s performance. Evidence that White Bird raised all of the issues he. deemed important both through experienced appellate counsel and in his own supplemental brief supports the district court’s findings. The district court’s denial of White Bird’s post-conviction relief was not clear error because the court’s findings were supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Ill
[¶9] White Bird argues the district court erred limiting his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to only his appellate counsel instead of also allowing him to allege ineffective assistance of trial counsel. White Bird represented himself at trial and he has no claim for his own ineffectiveness.
See State v. Hart,
[¶ 10] White Bird includes numerous other contentions in his brief. We conclude any remaining issues or arguments are without merit or unnecessary to the decision.
IV
[¶ 11] We affirm the order denying White Bird’s post-conviction relief because the district court’s findings of fact were supported by a preponderance of the evidence.