Appellant challenged his convictions of second-degree murder and second-degree assault, arguing that his trial counsel’s failure to challenge a warrant that authorized the search of his property constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant also challenged his sentence, arguing that the District Court erred by failing to sentence the offenses in the order in which they occurred. The Court of Appeals held that the search-warrant affidavit supported the issuing judge’s practical, common sense determination that there was a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found on appellant’s property. Therefore, appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective. But the District Court did not sentence the offenses in the order in which they occurred. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.