Matter of T.O.

2011 ND 9
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 12, 2011
Docket20100270
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 2011 ND 9 (Matter of T.O.) 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.

Bluebook
Matter of T.O., 2011 ND 9 (N.D. 2011).

Opinion

Filed 1/12/11 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2011 ND 1

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Bradley J. Buller, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20100215

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Donald L. Jorgensen, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Pamela A. Nesvig, Assistant State’s Attorney, P.O. Box 5518, Bismarck, ND 58506-5518, for plaintiff and appellee.

Mark T. Blumer, P.O. Box 475, Valley City, ND 58072, for defendant and appellant.

Jonathan R. Byers, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Attorney General, 600 E. Boulevard Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58505-0040, for amicus curiae State of North Dakota.  Submitted on brief.

State v. Buller

[¶1] Bradley Buller appealed from an amended order requiring him to register as a sex offender after he pleaded guilty to stalking.  Buller challenges the constitutionality of § 12.1-32-15(2)(e), N.D.C.C., which gives the district court the discretion to order sex offender registration if the defendant “[h]as pled guilty or nolo contendere, been found guilty, or been adjudicated delinquent of any crime against another individual which is not otherwise specified in this section if the court determines that registration is warranted by the nature of the crime.”  Specifically, Buller argues the statute is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority and is void for vagueness.

[¶2] Buller did not challenge the constitutionality of the statute before the district court.   See State v. Addai , 2010 ND 29, ¶ 49, 778 N.W.2d 555 (“Issues that are not raised before the district court, including constitutional issues, ‘generally will not be addressed on appeal.’” (quoting State v. Parisien , 2005 ND 152, ¶ 17, 703 N.W.2d 306)).  We summarily affirm the district court’s amended order under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

[¶3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Mary Muehlen Maring

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stokes v. Hehn
2011 ND 214 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2011)
State v. Nakvinda
2011 ND 217 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2011)
Rolette County State's Attorney v. L.D.M.
2011 ND 25 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2011)
State v. Boespflug
2011 ND 30 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2011)
State v. Buller
2011 ND 1 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2011 ND 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-to-nd-2011.