State v. Seidel

North Dakota Supreme Court

State v. Seidel

2018 ND 215, 917 N.W.2d 514

CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 25, 2018

Docket20180035

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2018 ND 215 (State v. Seidel) 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. Seidel, 2018 ND 215, 917 N.W.2d 514 (N.D. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

[¶ 1] Pamela Marie Seidel appeals from a criminal judgment sentencing her to the maximum period of incarceration (30 days) and 360 days of unsupervised probation. As a condition of probation, Seidel was ordered to participate in North Dakota's 24/7 Sobriety Program ("24/7 Program") after her plea of guilty to driving under the influence. On appeal, Seidel argues that because she had already served the maximum period of incarceration for a class B misdemeanor, it was improper to place her on probation and order her participation in the 24/7 Program. Although not argued to the district court, Seidel asserts her placement in the 24/7 Program unconstitutionally restricts her right to travel under both the United States Constitution and the North Dakota Constitution. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). See State v. McClean , 1998 ND 21 , ¶ 8, 575 N.W.2d 200 ("The Legislature did not restrict a trial court from imposing both a maximum probation sentence and a maximum imprisonment sentence for misdemeanors."); see also State v. Kieper, 2008 ND 65 , ¶ 16, 747 N.W.2d 497 (constitutional issues will not be considered for the first time on appeal).

[¶ 2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Jon J. Jensen

Lisa Fair McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers

Jerod E. Tufte

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

Per Curiam.

[¶ 1] Pamela Marie Seidel appeals from a criminal judgment sentencing her to the maximum period of incarceration (30 days) and 360 days of unsupervised probation. As a condition of probation, Seidel was ordered to participate in North Dakota's 24/7 Sobriety Program ("24/7 Program") after her plea of guilty to driving under the influence. On appeal, Seidel argues that because she had already served the maximum period of incarceration for a class B misdemeanor, it was improper to place her on probation and order her participation in the 24/7 Program. Although not argued to the district court, Seidel asserts her placement in the 24/7 Program unconstitutionally restricts her right to travel under both the United States Constitution and the North Dakota Constitution. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). See State v. McClean , 1998 ND 21 , ¶ 8, 575 N.W.2d 200 ("The Legislature did not restrict a trial court from imposing both a maximum probation sentence and a maximum imprisonment sentence for misdemeanors."); see also State v. Kieper, 2008 ND 65 , ¶ 16, 747 N.W.2d 497 (constitutional issues will not be considered for the first time on appeal).

[¶ 2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Jon J. Jensen

Lisa Fair McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers

Jerod E. Tufte

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2018 ND 215, 917 N.W.2d 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-seidel-nd-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack