Melchior v. Lystad

2010 ND 140
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 13, 2010
Docket20100045
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 2010 ND 140 (Melchior v. Lystad) 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
Melchior v. Lystad, 2010 ND 140 (N.D. 2010).

Opinion

Filed 7/13/10 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2010 ND 129

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

James Michael Everett, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20090386

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable Lawrence E. Jahnke, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Peter D. Welte, State’s Attorney, and Sean B. Kasson, third-year law student, P.O. Box 5607, Grand Forks, N.D. 58206-5607, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Kent M. Morrow, P.O. Box 2155, Bismarck, N.D. 58502-2155, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.

State v. Everett

[¶1] James Michael Everett appeals from an order revoking his probation and resentencing him to five year’s incarceration with one year suspended.  On appeal, Everett argues the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation.  He argues the trial court should have made findings that incarceration was necessary under ABA Standards Relating to Probation, § 5.1(a).  Everett is requesting this Court to review his sentence in the context of whether he should have received probation or incarceration.  Appellate review of a sentence focuses only on whether the trial court “acted within the limits prescribed by statute, or substantially relied on an impermissible factor.”    State v. Wardner , 2006 ND 256, ¶ 27, 725 N.W.2d 215; see State v. Ennis , 464 N.W.2d 378, 382 (N.D. 1990) (“On appeal of a claim that a sentence is excessive or incorrect, this court has no power to review the discretion of a sentencing court in fixing a term of imprisonment within the range authorized by statue.”).  Because the trial court had the discretion to sentence Everett to incarceration and nothing in the record indicates the trial court relied on impermissible sentencing factors, we affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1 (a)(4) and (7).

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Mary Muehlen Maring

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner

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

Related

Higgins v. Lund
2025 ND 47 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2025)
Goodall v. Monson
2017 ND 92 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2017)
Johnson v. Finkle
2013 ND 149 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2013)
Waldock v. Amber Harvest Corp.
2012 ND 180 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2012)
Nichols v. Goughnour
2012 ND 178 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2012)
Dahly v. Anderson
2012 ND 183 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2012)
Johnson v. Hovland
2011 ND 64 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2011)
Silliman v. All American Biodiesel, Inc.
2011 ND 54 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2010 ND 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melchior-v-lystad-nd-2010.