The North Dakota Supreme Court convened on December 13, 2024, to deliberate on the case of Tiah v. State, focusing on the effectiveness of legal counsel and procedural issues surrounding the statute of limitations. The discussions highlighted critical aspects of the case, particularly the performance of Mr. Birch, the defense attorney, and the implications of the court's findings.

The court examined whether Mr. Birch provided reasonable assistance to Mr. Tiah, who argued that he received ineffective counsel regarding immigration consequences tied to his plea. It was noted that Mr. Birch had consulted with Ms. Swanson about these issues and had advised Mr. Tiah against leaving the country due to potential deportation risks. The court's findings indicated that Mr. Birch's actions were deemed reasonable, as he successfully negotiated a favorable plea bargain for Mr. Tiah.

A significant point of contention arose regarding the statute of limitations. The court acknowledged that the petitions were untimely but chose not to deny them on that basis, instead addressing the merits of the case. This decision raised questions about the court's authority to make such a ruling without first resolving the statute of limitations issue. The discussion suggested that the court should have prioritized this threshold issue before proceeding to the merits.

The justices debated whether the state needed to raise the statute of limitations as a cross-appeal to preserve the issue for review. Ultimately, it was agreed that the district court's analysis on the merits was correct, which influenced the decision not to pursue a cross-appeal on the timeliness of the petition.

The court also discussed the burden of proof on Mr. Tiah to demonstrate that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different had he received effective counsel. The case involved a global resolution of four cases, three of which were under appeal from post-conviction.

In conclusion, the North Dakota Supreme Court's deliberations in Tiah v. State underscored the complexities of legal representation and procedural integrity, particularly concerning the intersection of ineffective assistance claims and statutory deadlines. The court's decisions will have implications for future cases involving similar issues of counsel effectiveness and procedural adherence.