State v. Smith, 864 N.W.2d 259

Police responded to a report of a burnt marijuana odor; Smith answered the door and refused consent to search, so officers obtained a warrant and searched his apartment.
Search uncovered a green bag with four small bundles of white powder (cocaine) under the bedroom mattress next to a wallet with Smith’s ID; a notebook and text messages suggested Smith’s involvement in drug sales.
Smith was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver (Class A) and several Class C felony counts; the State alleged the Class A count was a third-or-subsequent offense, triggering a 20-year mandatory minimum under N.D.C.C. § 19‑03.1‑23(1)(a)(2) and (5).
Smith moved to strike the mandatory minimum; the district court denied the motion, and a jury convicted Smith on the Class A count; he pled guilty to some other counts and received concurrent sentences (20 years on the Class A count).
On appeal Smith argued (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to strike the mandatory minimum (claiming his prior convictions were not properly sequenced), and (2) insufficient evidence supported the intent-to-deliver conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the mandatory 20-year minimum under § 19-03.1-23 applied	State: Smith had two prior qualifying convictions alleged in the charging documents, so the statute’s prior-offense language applies and the mandatory minimum is proper	Smith: His prior offenses were resolved in a single judgment dated Feb. 9, 2011, with underlying events on different dates, so § 19-03.1-23(5) requires an ‘‘interval’’ or separate prior pleas before the later conduct and thus the third-offense enhancement shouldn’t apply	Affirmed: Court rejects Smith’s new sequencing argument; under precedent and the statute the district court did not commit an obvious legal error in applying the mandatory minimum
Sufficiency of evidence for possession with intent to deliver	State: Physical placement of cocaine next to Smith’s ID, notebook and text messages indicating distribution support intent and possession	Smith: Co-resident (Schilingo) testified the bag and cocaine were hers and she had distributed it to others; cocaine therefore was not his	Affirmed: Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational factfinder could infer Smith’s possession and intent to deliver

State v. Murphy, 855 N.W.2d 647 (N.D. 2014) (standard for reviewing sentencing statutory interpretation and when to review district court’s statutory interpretation at sentencing)
State v. Corman, 765 N.W.2d 530 (N.D. 2009) (appellate scope of review for criminal sentencing discretion)
State v. Laib, 644 N.W.2d 878 (N.D. 2002) (construction of "offense" under chapter 19-03.1 and use of prior convictions for enhancement)
State v. Jones, 591 N.W.2d 135 (N.D. 1999) ("offense" pertains to actor’s conduct; multiple counts in single charging instrument treated as separate conduct)
State v. Charbonneau, 792 N.W.2d 530 (N.D. 2010) (1999 amendment to § 19-03.1-23(5) requires prior plea/finding occur before later conduct; does not require separate judgment dates)
State v. Skarsgard, 745 N.W.2d 358 (N.D. 2008) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in criminal convictions)
State v. Christian, 795 N.W.2d 702 (N.D. 2011) (appellate court will not reweigh evidence or judge credibility when assessing sufficiency)
State v. Olander, 575 N.W.2d 658 (N.D. 1998) (standard for correcting obvious error on appeal)