Ratliff v. State

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Nathan Ratliff’s application for post-conviction relief. The court rejected his claims of ineffective assistance concerning the right to testify and speedy trial, and upheld his sentencing as an habitual offender based on a prior felony conviction and probation revocation order.

Holdings

1. Ratliff did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel or a violation of his constitutional right to testify because he failed to show that he affirmatively asserted the right to testify and failed to demonstrate that his testimony would probably have changed the outcome.
2. Ratliff did not establish ineffective assistance arising from counsel's failure to make an earlier speedy-trial demand because he failed to show that an earlier trial would probably have produced a different result.
3. A prior felony conviction followed by revocation of probation remains qualifying as a felony for purposes of the habitual-offender statute, even though the original sentence did not exceed one year.
4. The district court properly took judicial notice of the signed judicial order revoking Ratliff's probation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Ratliff received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not call him to testify.
2. Whether Ratliff received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not make an earlier demand for a speedy trial.
3. Whether the district court properly determined that Ratliff's prior conviction qualified as a felony for habitual-offender sentencing after probation was revoked.
4. Whether the district court properly took judicial notice of the order revoking probation.

Disposition

affirmed