920 N.W.2d 746
N.D.2018Background
- Dalyn James Vollrath was charged with child abuse/neglect; the court appointed a guardian ad litem in May 2017 and noted the guardian’s fees were “subject to future reimbursement considerations.”
- Vollrath pled guilty and the court entered an Order Deferring Imposition of Sentence (DIS Order) on October 4, 2017; the DIS Order made no mention of reimbursement or reservation of the guardian-fee issue.
- Pembina County requested reimbursement for guardian ad litem fees and the district court entered a Reimbursement Order on December 8, 2017, requiring Vollrath to pay $5,000 to the County.
- Vollrath moved to vacate the Reimbursement Order; the court denied relief on April 19, 2018, and Vollrath appealed that order.
- The State defended the Reimbursement Order; Vollrath argued the court lacked jurisdiction to enter it after the DIS Order became final and that the issue was not preserved.
- The Supreme Court vacated the Reimbursement Order, holding the district court lacked jurisdiction to amend the sentence by ordering reimbursement after the judgment was final.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to order reimbursement of guardian ad litem fees after the DIS Order | County: court could order reimbursement based on earlier guardian-ad-litem appointment language | Vollrath: DIS Order was final, reserved no reimbursement issue, so court lost jurisdiction when appeal period expired | Vacated: court lacked jurisdiction; Reimbursement Order void because not authorized by the DIS Order |
| Whether the DIS Order served as the final, appealable judgment | State: DIS Order did not preclude later administrative action | Vollrath: DIS Order is an appealable judgment; absence of reservation ends court’s jurisdiction after appeal period | Held that the DIS Order was appealable and final once the time to appeal passed; no reservation existed |
| Whether oral statements at sentencing could support later reimbursement without written reservation | County: oral comments allowed revisiting fees | Vollrath: written DIS Order controls; oral remarks insufficient | Held written DIS Order controls; oral remarks insufficient to reserve the issue |
| Whether Rule 35 relief could be used to challenge the underlying conviction or to obtain broader relief | State: Reimbursement order permissible under court’s plenary powers | Vollrath: Rule 35 cannot be used to attack conviction or revive jurisdiction for unrelated errors | Held Rule 35 cannot be used to reexamine pre-sentencing errors; only the Reimbursement Order was reviewable and reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- J.S.S. v. P.M.Z., 429 N.W.2d 425 (court retains jurisdiction until all issues are finally determined)
- State v. Meier, 440 N.W.2d 700 (trial court loses jurisdiction to amend final judgment except as allowed by statute or rules)
- State v. Berger, 683 N.W.2d 897 (an order deferring imposition of sentence can serve as the judgment of conviction and is appealable)
- State v. Prince, 66 N.W.2d 796 (criminal action pending until final determination on appeal or expiration of appeal time)
- Deyle v. Deyle, 825 N.W.2d 245 (written statements control over discrepant oral statements)
- State v. Edwards, 736 N.W.2d 449 (orders not authorized by the judgment of conviction must be vacated)