843 N.W.2d 1
N.D.2014Background
- Cook was charged after a vehicle search with: possession of diazepam with intent to deliver or manufacture (Count 1), possession of clonazepam (Count 2), possession of methamphetamine (Count 3), possession of drug paraphernalia (Count 4), and reckless endangerment (Count 5).
- Cook moved to suppress evidence from the vehicle search; the district court denied the motion, citing reasons stated on the record.
- Cook entered conditional guilty pleas to Counts 1–4 and proceeded to a jury trial on Count 5; the jury convicted him of reckless endangerment.
- On appeal Cook challenged the denial of the suppression motion and argued the reckless endangerment conviction was improper because no substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death was created.
- Cook failed to timely order and file transcripts of the suppression hearing and trial as required by N.D.R.App.P. 10(b); he filed an order for transcripts months late and did not seek or show good cause for an extension.
- The State moved (and argued) that the appeal should be dismissed because the missing transcripts prevented meaningful appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of Cook's suppression motion should be reviewed | State: dismissal appropriate because no transcripts were filed, precluding review | Cook: seeks review of suppression denial (no transcript provided) | Appeal dismissed for failure to comply with N.D.R.App.P. 10(b); court declined to review merits |
| Whether Cook's reckless endangerment conviction was proper | State: conviction stands; appellate review prevented by lack of transcripts | Cook: no substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death was created by his conduct | Court declined to review the claim because record/transcripts were unavailable; conviction not reviewed on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Fargo v. Bommersbach, 511 N.W.2d 563 (N.D. 1994) (appellant bears consequences of failing to file a complete transcript; without a record, review will be declined)
- Sabot v. Fargo Women’s Health Organization, 500 N.W.2d 889 (N.D. 1993) (same principle regarding necessity of an adequate record for appellate review)
- State v. Noack, 732 N.W.2d 389 (N.D. 2007) (appellate rules must be reasonably complied with, even by pro se litigants; noncompliance can justify dismissal)