JOHNSON v. STATE

Per Curiam.

[¶ 1] Robert Johnson appeals from the district court's judgment summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. Johnson argues the district court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on his application for post-conviction relief because a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether his decision not to testify was informed and voluntary.

[¶ 2] The district court's judgment is affirmed underN.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6).

[¶ 3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Dale V. Sandstrom