Rahn v. State, 20070022.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota |
| Citation | 736 N.W.2d 488,2007 ND 121 |
| Docket Number | No. 20070022.,No. 20070023.,No. 20070024.,20070022.,20070023.,20070024. |
| Parties | Steven Allen RAHN, Petitioner and Appellant v. STATE of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 25 July 2007 |
v.
STATE of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee.
[736 N.W.2d 489]
Steven Allen Rahn, pro se, Mandan, N.D., petitioner and appellant.
Cynthia Mae Feland, Assistant State's Attorney, Bismarck, N.D., for respondent and appellee.
[736 N.W.2d 490]
KAPSNER, Justice.
[¶ 1] Steven Rahn has appealed from district court orders denying his motion for correction or reduction of sentence and denying his application for post-conviction relief. We dismiss Rahn's appeal from the order denying his motion for correction or reduction of sentence, concluding we do not have jurisdiction. We affirm the order denying post-conviction relief, concluding the relief sought by Rahn is not available through post-conviction proceedings.
[¶ 2] Rahn was charged with driving under revocation, his eighth such offense within five years. In addition, the State filed petitions to revoke his probation on prior convictions for driving under revocation and driving under the influence. At a June 29, 2006, hearing, Rahn pleaded guilty to driving under revocation and admitted the allegations in the petitions to revoke his probation. The court initially sentenced Rahn to serve one year at the Burleigh County Detention Center in each case, with the sentences to run concurrently. After counsel for both the State and Rahn suggested it might be preferable to have Rahn serve his sentence with the North Dakota Department of Corrections in order for Rahn to receive treatment for his hepatitis C, the court ordered that Rahn serve his sentence with the Department of Corrections.
[¶ 3] After being incarcerated, Rahn was informed by prison officials that he did not meet the Department of Corrections' protocol for hepatitis treatment. On September 7, 2006, Rahn filed a motion for correction or reduction of sentence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35, arguing that his failure to receive hepatitis treatment at the penitentiary warranted a reduction in his sentence to time served and seeking immediate release from custody. The court denied Rahn's motion in an order entered on September 21, 2006. Rahn did not file a timely appeal from that order.
[¶ 4] On December 6, 2006, Rahn filed an application for post-conviction relief, again arguing that the State's failure to provide treatment for his hepatitis C entitled him to relief, including immediate release from custody. By an order dated December 20, 2006, the court denied Rahn's motion.
[¶ 5] On January 3, 2006, Rahn filed a notice of appeal from the orders denying his motion for correction or reduction of sentence and his application for post-conviction relief.
[¶ 6] Rahn has attempted to appeal from the district court order denying his motion to correct or reduce his sentence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35.
[¶ 7] Before we can consider the merits of an appeal, we must have jurisdiction. City of Grand Forks v. Lamb, 2005 ND 103, ¶ 5, 697 N.W.2d 362. The right of appeal in a criminal case is statutory and is a jurisdictional matter that we will consider sua sponte. Id.; State v. Steen, 2003 ND 116, ¶ 5, 665 N.W.2d 688; State v. Gwyther, 1999 ND 15, ¶ 17, 589 N.W.2d 575. If there is no right to appeal, we are without jurisdiction to consider the merits and must dismiss the appeal. Lamb, at ¶ 5; Gwyther, at ¶ 17. Appeals in criminal cases are governed by N.D.C.C. ch. 29-28, and under N.D.C.C. § 29-28-06(5) a defendant may appeal from an "order made after judgment affecting any substantial right of the party." See Steen, at ¶ 5.
[¶ 8] Rahn moved for correction or reduction of his sentence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35. There are two parts to the rule: the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peterka v. State, 20140425.
...a motion for reduction of sentence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(b) does not affect a substantial right and is not appealable.” Rahn v. State, 2007 ND 121, ¶ 8, 736 N.W.2d 488. In contrast, “an order denying a motion for correction of an illegal sentence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a) involves a substa......
-
State v. Neilan, 20210065
...¶ 18, 864 N.W.2d 745; State v. Lowe, 2015 ND 126, ¶ 8, 863 N.W.2d 525; State v. Moore, 2010 ND 229, ¶ 5, 791 N.W.2d 376; Rahn v. State, 2007 ND 121, ¶ 8, 736 N.W.2d 488; State v. Halton, 535 N.W.2d 734, 736 (N.D. 1995); State v. Gunwall, 522 N.W.2d 183, 184-85 (N.D. 1994); State v. Jefferso......
-
State v. Neilan, 20210065
...864 N.W.2d 745 ; State v. Lowe , 2015 ND 126, ¶ 8, 863 N.W.2d 525 ; State v. Moore , 2010 ND 229, ¶ 5, 791 N.W.2d 376 ; Rahn v. State , 2007 ND 121, ¶ 8, 736 N.W.2d 488 ; State v. Halton , 535 N.W.2d 734, 736 (N.D. 1995) ; State v. Gunwall , 522 N.W.2d 183, 184-85 (N.D. 1994) ; State v. Jef......
-
State v. Hahne, 20070013.
...checkpoints, in general, do not create an unconstitutional degree of subjective intrusion on a motorist's personal liberties. Id. 736 N.W.2d 488 [¶ 13] Although the driver in City of Bismarck v. Uhden did not challenge the constitutionality of the checkpoint on the basis of the degree of in......
-
Peterka v. State, 20140425.
...a motion for reduction of sentence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(b) does not affect a substantial right and is not appealable.” Rahn v. State, 2007 ND 121, ¶ 8, 736 N.W.2d 488. In contrast, “an order denying a motion for correction of an illegal sentence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a) involves a substa......
-
State v. Neilan, 20210065
...¶ 18, 864 N.W.2d 745; State v. Lowe, 2015 ND 126, ¶ 8, 863 N.W.2d 525; State v. Moore, 2010 ND 229, ¶ 5, 791 N.W.2d 376; Rahn v. State, 2007 ND 121, ¶ 8, 736 N.W.2d 488; State v. Halton, 535 N.W.2d 734, 736 (N.D. 1995); State v. Gunwall, 522 N.W.2d 183, 184-85 (N.D. 1994); State v. Jefferso......
-
State v. Neilan, 20210065
...864 N.W.2d 745 ; State v. Lowe , 2015 ND 126, ¶ 8, 863 N.W.2d 525 ; State v. Moore , 2010 ND 229, ¶ 5, 791 N.W.2d 376 ; Rahn v. State , 2007 ND 121, ¶ 8, 736 N.W.2d 488 ; State v. Halton , 535 N.W.2d 734, 736 (N.D. 1995) ; State v. Gunwall , 522 N.W.2d 183, 184-85 (N.D. 1994) ; State v. Jef......
-
State v. Hahne, 20070013.
...checkpoints, in general, do not create an unconstitutional degree of subjective intrusion on a motorist's personal liberties. Id. 736 N.W.2d 488 [¶ 13] Although the driver in City of Bismarck v. Uhden did not challenge the constitutionality of the checkpoint on the basis of the degree of in......