Background
A Ward County jury convicted Travis McDermott of manslaughter and reckless endangerment. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal in State v. McDermott, 2025 ND 39, 17 N.W.3d 583. McDermott then filed an application for postconviction relief in the district court, claiming his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing at which McDermott was the sole witness. After the hearing, the court denied the application. It dismissed some claims on misuse-of-process grounds under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-12(2)(a) and rejected the remainder after concluding McDermott had failed to satisfy either prong of the two-part test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). McDermott appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of postconviction relief, finding that the district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous. The court focused solely on the prejudice prong of Strickland, noting that courts need not address both prongs and should resolve a claim on one prong when possible. Because the district court’s finding that McDermott failed to show prejudice disposed of all his arguments, the court declined to reach the misuse-of-process dismissals or the question of whether counsel’s performance was deficient.
The court emphasized that McDermott’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing consisted largely of conclusory or speculative statements, some of which were contradicted by the record. The district court found this testimony insufficient to establish a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different absent the alleged deficiencies in trial counsel’s performance. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Key Takeaways
- A postconviction petitioner alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must satisfy both prongs of Strickland — deficient performance and resulting prejudice — but courts may resolve the claim by addressing only one prong.
- Conclusory or speculative testimony at an evidentiary hearing, particularly when contradicted by the record, is insufficient to establish the prejudice necessary to succeed on an ineffective assistance claim.
- Findings of fact from a postconviction proceeding are reviewed for clear error, giving substantial deference to the district court’s assessment of the evidence presented at the hearing.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the high bar defendants face when challenging their convictions through postconviction ineffective assistance claims in North Dakota. The court’s reliance on the prejudice prong alone — without reaching deficient performance — signals that speculative or self-serving testimony from a petitioner, standing as the sole witness, will rarely be enough to undermine confidence in a jury verdict that has already survived direct appeal.
For defense practitioners, the case underscores the importance of building a detailed, record-supported factual foundation before and during postconviction evidentiary hearings. Bare assertions that different lawyering would have changed the result will not satisfy Strickland‘s prejudice requirement.