Shaw v. State

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT APRIL 28, 2021 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2021 ND 78 Delvin Lamont Shaw, Petitioner and Appellant v. State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee No. 20200190 Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable John A. Thelen, Judge. AFFIRMED. Per Curiam. Delvin L. Shaw, Bismarck, ND, petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief. Carmell F. Mattison, Assistant State’s Attorney, Grand Forks, ND, for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief. Shaw v. State No. 20200190 Per Curiam. [¶1] Delvin Lamont Shaw appeals from an order denying his application for post-conviction relief. Following a jury trial, Shaw was convicted on charges of murder and burglary. Shaw argues the district court erred in denying his application for post-conviction relief because he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on direct appeal. Shaw contends his appellate counsel was ineffective because counsel did not consult with him about the objectives of his appeal and failed to raise issues that Shaw preserved at trial. Following a postconviction evidentiary hearing, the court found Shaw failed to demonstrate any actual prejudice and therefore failed to satisfy the second prong of the Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel. [¶2] We conclude the district court’s findings are not clearly erroneous. Courts need not address both prongs of the Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel claims if the matter can be resolved by addressing only one prong. Rencountre v. State, 2015 ND 62, ¶ 7, 860 N.W.2d 837. The court did not err in denying Shaw’s application for post-conviction relief, and we summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). [¶3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, Acting C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas L. Mattson, D.J. [¶4] The Honorable Douglas L. Mattson, D.J., sitting in place of Jensen, C.J., disqualified. 1

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.