State v. Christensen, 921 N.W.2d 436

On April 15, 2017, Raymond Christensen was involved in a motor-vehicle accident and charged with leaving the scene with injury (class C felony) and aggravated reckless driving (class A misdemeanor).
Christensen pled guilty to both offenses on November 14, 2017. A presentence investigation recommended supervised probation under the presumptive-probation statute.
At sentencing, the district court questioned whether Christensen’s vehicle could be a “dangerous weapon,” an exception to presumptive probation, and allowed briefing on that issue.
The court relied on State v. Vetter and concluded the vehicle was a dangerous weapon, finding the dangerous-weapon exception applied and sentencing Christensen to jail (with most time suspended).
The Supreme Court held the dangerous-weapon exception did not apply because Christensen was not charged with an offense “involving a dangerous weapon,” and vacated the jail sentence as the court had substantially relied on an impermissible factor; remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the "dangerous weapon" exception to presumptive probation applies	State: Christensen’s vehicle functioned as a dangerous weapon so presumptive probation does not apply	Christensen: He was not charged with an offense "involving a dangerous weapon" and presumptive probation should apply	Held: Exception does not apply; statute requires defendant be charged/convicted of an offense involving a dangerous weapon
Whether the district court substantially relied on an impermissible factor in sentencing	State: Court permissibly found vehicle was a dangerous weapon and sentenced to jail	Christensen: Court erred; relying on that finding was impermissible because statutory exception did not apply	Held: Court substantially relied on an impermissible factor (erroneous dangerous-weapon finding); sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing

State v. Vetter, 826 N.W.2d 334 (N.D. 2013) (vehicle may be a "dangerous weapon" depending on how it is used)
State v. Murphy, 855 N.W.2d 647 (N.D. 2014) (appellate review limits for criminal sentences and standards)
State v. Corman, 765 N.W.2d 530 (N.D. 2009) (appellate review confined to statutory limits and impermissible factors)
State v. Ennis, 464 N.W.2d 378 (N.D. 1990) (trial judge has wide discretion in sentencing)