Legal Opinion

Sambursky v. State

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided November 7, 2006No. 20050330, 20050331, 20050032, 20050033, 20050034, 20050035PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KAPSNER, Justice.

[¶ 1] Paul Sambursky appeals from an order denying his application for post-conviction relief. We conclude the district court did not err in determining Sambur-sky’s guilty plea was made knowingly and voluntarily, but conclude Sambursky raised genuine issues of material fact on his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. Sambursky is entitled to an evidentia-ry hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Therefore, the order denying the application for post-conviction relief is affirmed in part and reversed in part.

I

[¶ 2] In 2001 and 2002, a series of sexual…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Hill v. LockhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Roe v. Flores-OrtegaSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  5. Heckelsmiller v. StateNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2004

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Klose v. StateNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Roth v. StateNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2007
  3. State v. BatesNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Bahtiraj v. StateNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Lindsey v. StateNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2014

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API