Hale v. Ward County
2012 ND 144
N.D.2012Background
- Eide pled guilty in 2001 to multiple felonies and in 2002 additional felonies; sentences totaled with five years suspended on probation for several counts.
- Eide was civilly committed as a sexually dangerous individual in June 2006 under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3 and discharged December 27, 2010.
- On December 27, 2010, the district court amended five judgments to require five years of probation after discharge from commitment.
- In January 3, 2011, Eide petitioned to extend his probation for five years after the original period, which the court granted.
- In June 2011, Eide moved to correct illegal sentences under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a), challenging the December 27, 2010 amendments; the district court denied the motion.
- The Supreme Court conducted de novo review and held that notice was required before modifying probation; three judgments were not amended in 2010 and the January 3, 2011 extension remained in effect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court could amend probation terms without notice | Eide (State) argues amendments violated notice requirements | Eide contends amendments were improper without prior notice | Yes, lack of notice voids amendments to five judgments |
| Whether some judgments expired before the 2010 amendments | State asserts amendments valid if within authority | Eide argues expired sentences cannot be amended | Three judgments not amended; expired sentence in 34-01-K-00163 not amended by 2010 order |
| Whether the January 3, 2011 probation extension remains in effect | State maintains extension valid and controlling | Eide contends extension unrelated to 2010 amendments | Probation extension remains in effect under the January 3, 2011 order |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court 1967) (due-process notice must be provided before hearings)
- Grenz, 243 N.W.2d 375 (N.D. 1976) (statutory notice required; without it, jurisdiction and due process denied)
- State v. Raulston, 707 N.W.2d 464 (N.D. 2005) (illegal sentence defined; maximum terms and corrections)
- State v. Edwards, 736 N.W.2d 449 (N.D. 2007) (illegality includes deviations from plea or oral sentence)
- Wheeler v. Gardner, 708 N.W.2d 908 (N.D. 2006) (de novo review of questions of law)
- State v. Stavig, 711 N.W.2d 183 (N.D. 2006) (lawful review of legal issues on appeal)