State v. Heintz
This text of 2024 ND 82 (State v. Heintz) 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2024 ND 82
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Kyle Martin Heintz, Defendant and Appellant
Nos. 20230382–20230385
Appeals from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable Donald Hager, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Kathryn R. Jund, Assistant State’s Attorney, and Victoria J.M. Christian, under the Rule on Limited Practice of Law by Law Students, Grand Forks, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.
Kevin McCabe, Dickinson, N.D., for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief. State v. Heintz Nos. 20230382–20230385
[¶1] Kyle Martin Heintz appeals from orders for revocation of probation entered in four criminal cases. He argues the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to continue the sentencing portion of his revocation proceedings. After review of the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to continue. We summarily affirm the orders for revocation of probation under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2024 ND 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-heintz-nd-2024.