Skip to main content
· 9/28/2023

Isac v. State

Citations

  • 2023 ND 181

Syllabus

When a post-conviction relief applicant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea based upon ineffective assistance of counsel, the applicant must satisfy a two-prong test by showing (1) his counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the applicant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Under the second prong, the district court is required to determine what the applicant would have done had he received competent advice—not what he would have done with the benefit of hindsight. Witnesses must testify from personal knowledge. Witnesses may use notes to refresh their recollection, but they may not testify directly from the notes. A district court has broad discretion to control the use of evidence to refresh memory.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • noting that the Johnson-O’Malley Act is one of “numerous statutes empowering the [Bureau of Indian Affairs (‘BIA’)] to provide for Indian education both on and off the reservation”
  • applying doctrine where state imposed gross receipts tax on receipts that non-Indian construction company, hired to build reservation school, received from tribal school board
  • upholding an Indian Tribe's challenge to a state's attempt to tax the gross receipts a non-Indian construction company received from constructing a school on reservation property to educate tribal children
  • discussing Congress’s “broad power . . . to regulate tribal affairs under the Indian Commerce Clause”
  • discussing Congress’s “broad power . . . to regulate tribal affairs under the Indian Commerce Clause”
  • discussing Congress’s “broad power . . . to regulate tribal affairs under the Indian Commerce Clause”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Crothers, Daniel John

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.