State v. FaleideState v. Faleide
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Neumann
[¶ 1] Eric Alan Faleide appeals from a judgment and conviction entered on a guilty plea to the charges of carrying a concealed firearm or dangerous weapon and carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle. He challenges a probation condition. We reverse and remand for resentencing.
[¶ 2] A Fargo police officer stopped Faleide for committing a traffic violation. As the officer approached Faliede’s vehicle, the officer observed a rifle in plain view. A subsequent search of the vehicle yielded six guns, including an AK-47 and a Ruger pistol. Faleide pled guilty to carrying a concealed firearm or concealed weapon and carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle. As part of its sentence recommendation, the State sought forfeiture of the AK-47 and the Ruger pistol. Faleide resisted the forfeiture. The State acknowledged the offenses were not presumptive forfeiture crimes under
[¶ 3] Faleide argues the trial court imposed an illegal sentence by ordering forfeiture of his guns as a condition of probation. Faleide acknowledges a trial court could order forfeiture of his private property in a civil forfeiture proceeding under
[¶ 4] Generally, a trial court is allowed the widest range of discretion in criminal sentencing. State v. McClean, 1998 ND 21, ¶ 4, 575 N.W.2d 200. “Our appellate review of a criminal sentence is very limited.” State v. Ennis, 464 N.W.2d 378, 382 (N.D.1990). Our review of a sentence is generally confined to whether the trial court acted within the statutory sentencing limits. McClean, 1998 ND 21, ¶ 4, 575 N.W.2d 200.
[¶ 5] North Dakota’s statutes allow for forfeiture of the “proceeds of criminal activity or the instrumentalities of the crime” in a separate civil proceeding. Rick Maix-ner and Sidney Hertz Fiergola,
Article: Constitutional Issues in North Dakota Asset Forfeiture Law After Austin v. United States, Alexander v. United States, and United States v. Good Real Property,
70 N.D. L.Rev. 851, 851-52 (1994);
[¶ 6] In this case, the State did not initiate civil forfeiture proceedings under
2. The conditions of probation must be such as the court in its discretion deems reasonably necessary to ensure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist the defendant to do so. The court shall provide as an explicit condition of every probation that the defendant not commit another offense during the period for which the probation remains subject to revocation....
3. The court shall provide as an explicit condition of every probation that the defendant may not possess a firearm, destructive device, or other dangerous weapon while the defendant is on probation....
4. When imposing a sentence to probation, probation in conjunction with imprisonment, or probation in conjunction with suspended execution or deferred imposition of sentence, the court may impose such conditions as it deems appropriate....
[¶ 7] The State asserts the trial court had statutory authority to order forfeiture under
[¶ 8] Although a trial court may impose “such conditions as it deems appropriate,” under
[¶ 9] Because the trial court did not have statutory authority to order forfeiture as a condition of probation, the trial court abused its discretion in ordering forfeiture of Faleide’s firearms. We reverse and remand for resentencing.
[¶ 10] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., MARY MUEHLEN MARING, CAROL RONNING KAPSNER, and DALE V. SANDSTROM, JJ„ concur.