City of Williston v. Werkmeister, 865 N.W.2d 429

Kevin Werkmeister pled guilty to a municipal simple-assault ordinance charge in Williston Municipal Court on September 19, 2013.
In December 2013 he moved to withdraw his guilty plea (citing N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 defects); the municipal court denied that motion.
In February 2014 he moved for reconsideration; the municipal court denied it on April 17, 2014 as untimely and procedurally improper.
Werkmeister filed a notice of appeal to the district court on April 30, 2014, appealing the April 17, 2014 order and the original judgment.
The district court held Werkmeister was out of time to appeal the original conviction but concluded it had jurisdiction under N.D.C.C. § 29-28-06(5) because he had filed post-judgment motions; the court affirmed the municipal court’s denial of relief.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and whether the municipal court’s post-judgment orders gave Werkmeister a timely appeal route.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (City)	Defendant's Argument (Werkmeister)	Held
Whether the Supreme Court (and district court) have jurisdiction over the appeal from the municipal court’s post-judgment orders	City argued appeal was untimely and jurisdiction lacking because municipal appeal procedures control	Werkmeister argued he had a statutory right to appeal orders affecting substantial rights under N.D.C.C. § 29-28-06(5) and invoked Rule 37	Court held there was no right to appeal under § 29‑28‑06; municipal appeal statutes and Rule 37 govern, so the Court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal
Whether Werkmeister’s post-judgment motions tolled or extended the appeal deadline under Rule 37	City asserted his post-judgment motions did not satisfy the Rule 37(d) criteria that would extend the 30-day appeal period	Werkmeister argued his motions required the appeal deadline to run from disposition of those motions	Court held his motions were not the types that extended the deadline under Rule 37(d); he failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the conviction and thus had no appeal right

Holbach v. City of Minot, 817 N.W.2d 340 (N.D. 2012) (appellate jurisdiction is statutory and must be strictly followed)
City of Bismarck v. Walker, 308 N.W.2d 359 (N.D. 1981) (appellate jurisdiction derives from constitution or statute)
City of Grand Forks v. Riemers, 755 N.W.2d 99 (N.D. 2008) (no constitutional right to appeal; appeal is statutory)
City of Bismarck v. Uhden, 513 N.W.2d 373 (N.D. 1994) (municipal appeals require trial anew before district court)
City of Minot v. Mattern, 449 N.W.2d 560 (N.D. 1989) (statutory appeal requirements from municipal court must be met)
City of Bismarck v. Hoopman, 421 N.W.2d 466 (N.D. 1988) (municipal court appeals treated differently from appeals of record)
State v. Glaser, 858 N.W.2d 920 (N.D. 2015) (harmonizing statutes addressing same subject)
State v. Kuruc, 846 N.W.2d 314 (N.D. 2014) (statutory interpretation principles for related provisions)
City of Fargo v. Komad, 720 N.W.2d 619 (N.D. 2006) (appeal from municipal court is a trial anew in district court)
City of Kenmare v. Murray, 404 N.W.2d 513 (N.D. 1987) (appellate jurisdiction must be acquired and exercised only as prescribed)