State v. Kautzman

North Dakota Supreme Court

State v. Kautzman

383 N.W.2d 813, 1986 N.D. LEXIS 277

CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 19, 1986

DocketCrim. No. 1138

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 383 N.W.2d 813 (State v. Kautzman) 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

State v. Kautzman, 383 N.W.2d 813, 1986 N.D. LEXIS 277 (N.D. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Nick Kautzman was convicted of theft of property and received a deferred sentence conditioned on payment of $737.50 for court-appointed attorney’s fees and $200 for costs of prosecution. When these amounts were not paid by the specified dates, the county court issued an Order to Show Cause and Bench Warrant. Both the State’s Attorney and Kautzman moved to dismiss the order. The court, using information not contained in the record, determined that Kautzman had failed to show good cause for the nonpayment and issued a new order requiring payment of the costs and attorney’s fees by January 1, 1986.

On appeal, Kautzman contends that the record does not show that his attorney was court-appointed under Rule 44, N.D.R. Crim.P. and that the judgment did not include facts justifying the costs assessed as required by N.D.C.C. § 29-26-22. The State’s Attorney concedes error as to both claims.

Accordingly, we reverse the order assessing attorney’s fees, and we reverse and remand for proper assessment of costs.

ERICKSTAD, C.J., and MESCHKE, LEVINE, GIERKE and VANDE WALLE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Nick Kautzman was convicted of theft of property and received a deferred sentence conditioned on payment of $737.50 for court-appointed attorney’s fees and $200 for costs of prosecution. When these amounts were not paid by the specified dates, the county court issued an Order to Show Cause and Bench Warrant. Both the State’s Attorney and Kautzman moved to dismiss the order. The court, using information not contained in the record, determined that Kautzman had failed to show good cause for the nonpayment and issued a new order requiring payment of the costs and attorney’s fees by January 1, 1986.

On appeal, Kautzman contends that the record does not show that his attorney was court-appointed under Rule 44, N.D.R. Crim.P. and that the judgment did not include facts justifying the costs assessed as required by N.D.C.C. § 29-26-22. The State’s Attorney concedes error as to both claims.

Accordingly, we reverse the order assessing attorney’s fees, and we reverse and remand for proper assessment of costs.

ERICKSTAD, C.J., and MESCHKE, LEVINE, GIERKE and VANDE WALLE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 N.W.2d 813, 1986 N.D. LEXIS 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kautzman-nd-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack