Citibank v. Peterson
This text of 2011 ND 86 (Citibank v. Peterson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Filed 5/11/11 by Clerk of Supreme Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2011 ND 79
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Jaimie Lee Mudge, Defendant and Appellant
Nos. 20100368 - 20100371
Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable Lawrence E. Jahnke, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Faye A. Jasmer (on brief), Assistant State’s Attorney, P.O. Box 5607, Grand Forks, ND 58206-5607, for plaintiff and appellee.
Kent M. Morrow (on brief), P.O. Box 2155, Bismarck, ND 58502-2155, for defendant and appellant.
State v. Mudge
[¶1] Jaimie Mudge appealed from a criminal judgment and order denying his request for modification of his sentence. Mudge argues the district court erred in construing his letters as applications for post-conviction relief and in denying his requested relief. We conclude the judgment of the district court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in construing Mudge’s letters as applications for post-conviction relief. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Dale V. Sandstrom
Daniel J. Crothers
Mary Muehlen Maring
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2011 ND 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citibank-v-peterson-nd-2011.