State v. Blue, 915 N.W.2d 122

Background

Defendant James Blue II entered Alford pleas to 17 felonies (including attempted murder, terrorizing, reckless endangerment, assaults on EMS, contact by bodily fluids, unlawful firearm possession, and interference with an emergency call) arising from a December 2016–January 2017 episode of domestic violence, shooting, property damage, and spitting/blood contact with officers and EMS.
The State presented detailed facts at the plea hearing; Blue stipulated to restitution of $2,716.13 (covering property disposal and certain medical/benefit reimbursements) rather than request a restitution hearing.
At sentencing the district court imposed concurrent and consecutive terms totaling 20 years confinement and included restitution and payment conditions as terms of supervised probation.
Blue asked the court to make factual findings on his ability to pay restitution; the court declined to apply the statutory ability‑to‑pay inquiry, citing the victim’s constitutional right to “full and timely” restitution under N.D. Const. art. I, § 25(1)(n).
The court did not hold a separate restitution hearing; Blue preserved the argument that the court must consider ability to pay when ordering restitution.
The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence as proportional but held the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider the statutory ability‑to‑pay factor in N.D.C.C. § 12.1‑32‑08(1)(b); it remanded for consideration of Blue’s ability to pay restitution.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Blue's Argument	Held
Whether a district court must consider defendant's ability to pay before ordering restitution when defendant stipulated to amount	Stipulation obviates need for separate restitution hearing and separate findings; court may order restitution consistent with victim's constitutional right	Stipulation does not eliminate statutory requirement; court must make factual findings on ability to pay under N.D.C.C. § 12.1‑32‑08(1)(b)	Court: A stipulation need not trigger a separate hearing, but the court must consider the ability‑to‑pay factors when the issue is raised; remanded for consideration of ability to pay (abuse of discretion to omit)
Whether N.D. Const. art. I, § 25(1)(n) (victim's right to full restitution) nullifies statutory ability‑to‑pay requirement	Constitutional right to full restitution can trump statutory limitations if not reconcilable	Court must still apply statutory factors including ability to pay; constitution and statute should be harmonized	Court: The constitution does not eliminate the ability‑to‑pay inquiry; courts should harmonize statute and constitution; ability to pay must be considered when raised
Whether the total 20‑year sentence is cruel and unusual (Eighth Amendment proportionality)	Sentence within statutory ranges and reflects number/seriousness of convictions; not grossly disproportionate	Sentence is disproportionate compared to other cases relied on by Blue	Court: Sentences are within statutory limits and distinguishable by number of counts/criminal history; no Eighth Amendment violation; affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Carson, 900 N.W.2d 41 (N.D. 2017) (standard for reviewing restitution orders and abuse of discretion)
State v. Bruce, 907 N.W.2d 773 (N.D. 2018) (defendant bears burden to raise and prove inability to pay; future ability while on probation may be considered)
State v. Tupa, 691 N.W.2d 579 (N.D. 2005) (ability‑to‑pay burden and procedure)
State v. Kostelecky, 906 N.W.2d 77 (N.D. 2018) (relationship between constitutional restitution right and statutory restitution process)
State v. Hansen, 717 N.W.2d 541 (N.D. 2006) (procedural requirements for constitutional adjudication and need for briefing/notice)
State v. Thorstad, 261 N.W.2d 899 (N.D. 1978) (effect of plea stipulation on restitution hearing requirement)
State v. Gomez, 793 N.W.2d 451 (N.D. 2011) (Eighth Amendment proportionality framework)
Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (U.S. 1983) (limitations on revoking probation for failure to pay when inability to pay is shown)