State v. Ringsrud

State v. Ringsrud, 2002 ND 17, 642 N.W.2d 532

[Go to Documents]Filed Feb. 20, 2002[Download as WordPerfect]IN THE SUPREME COURTSTATE OF NORTH DAKOTA2002 ND 17

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Christopher Ryan Ringsrud, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20010242

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable Karen Kosanda Braaten, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Thomas H. Falck, Jr. (on brief), Assistant State's Attorney, and Steven L. Thuesen (on brief), third-year law student, 124 S. 4th St., P.O. Box 5607, Grand Forks, ND 58206-5607, for plaintiff and appellee.
DeWayne A. Johnston, Olson Johnston Law Office, 212 S. 4th St., Ste. 201, Grand Forks, ND 58201-4776, for defendant and appellant.

State v. Ringsrud
No. 20010242

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Christopher Ryan Ringsrud appeals from a criminal judgment finding him guilty of unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. Ringsrud argues he was not provided effective assistance of counsel and the verdict was not supported by substantial evidence.

[¶2] On an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Ringsrud must show his attorney's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and his attorney's conduct was prejudicial to him. State v. Ricehill, 415 N.W.2d 481, 484 (N.D. 1987). Ringsrud argues he was not provided effective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not file any pretrial motions to suppress the paraphernalia, a marijuana pipe. Failure to file pretrial motions, by itself, does not equate to ineffective assistance of counsel. See State v. Kroeplin, 266 N.W.2d 537, 541-42 (N.D. 1978). Ringsrud has not demonstrated any legal theory which requires suppression of this evidence. Ringsrud has not established with specificity how a lack of pretrial motions prejudiced his case. See Mathre v. State, 2000 ND 201, ¶ 3, 619 N.W.2d 627. Ringsrud has failed to establish he had ineffective assistance of counsel.

[¶3] On appeal of the conviction for insufficient evidence, Ringsrud argues he was not in possession of the marijuana pipe and he did not intend to use the pipe. In determining whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Ringsrud, "we look only to the evidence most favorable to the guilty verdict and the reasonable inferences therefrom to see if there is substantial evidence to warrant a conviction." State v. McKing, 1999 ND 81, ¶ 8, 593 N.W.2d 342. Possession may be constructive, which is established by presenting evidence "the accused had the power and capability to exercise dominion and control over the contraband." State v. Morris, 331 N.W.2d 48, 53 (N.D. 1983). In this case, Ringsrud was the lone occupant of the vehicle in which the pipe was found. The pipe was in plain view within the passenger compartment. Marijuana residue was present in the pipe. We conclude the guilty verdict is supported by substantial evidence.

[¶4] We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (3).

[¶5] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Mary Muehlen Maring
William A. Neumann
Dale V. Sandstrom