State v. Garvin, Cr. N
Decision Date | 10 February 1983 |
Docket Number | Cr. N |
Citation | 329 N.W.2d 621 |
Parties | STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Francis GARVIN, Defendant and Appellant. o. 882. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Melody R.J. Jensen, Asst. States Atty., and Robert G. Hoy, State's Atty., Fargo, for plaintiff and appellee; argued by Melody R.J. Jensen.
George E. Duis, Fargo, for defendant and appellant.
This is an appeal by the defendant, Francis Wesley Garvin, from a modified sentence, dated July 7, 1982, by the County Court with Increased Jurisdiction of Cass County. We reverse and remand so that the original sentence may be reinstated.
The facts in this case are not in dispute and thus can be briefly summarized. Garvin was arrested for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of Section 39-08-01, N.D.C.C. Subsequent thereto, Garvin plead guilty to the DWI charge and voluntarily underwent treatment from October 27, 1981, through November 19, 1981, at the Chemical Dependency Unit of the North Dakota State Hospital.
The county court ultimately sentenced Garvin for this offense on February 24, 1982:
On July 7, 1982, the county court modified the sentence it had imposed on February 24, 1982:
"...
The issues presented by this factual situation are twofold:
(1) Whether or not the county court's modified sentence, dated July 7, 1982, constituted an increase of Garvin's original sentence; and
(2) Whether or not Garvin's sentence as modified was valid.
In order to adjudicate the questions raised on appeal, we must first analyze Garvin's original sentence. During the court proceedings on February 24, 1982, the sentencing court unequivocally stated: "...
In the case at bar, the facts indicate that Garvin relied upon and interpreted these statements to mean the court had suspended his sentence and placed him on probation. As a result, Garvin contends that he reappeared on a monthly basis so that the court could ascertain if he was abiding by the terms of his probation. 1 In addition, Garvin participated in Antabuse, utilized the AA facilities, and was evaluated by Southeast Human Services in accordance with the court's request.
We are of the opinion that Garvin was correct in believing the statements in question implied that the county court intended to suspend Garvin's one-year jail sentence pursuant to Section 12-53-03, N.D.C.C. 2 Consequently, taking into consideration both the sentencing court's comments and Garvin's actions in reliance thereon, we conclude that the court proceedings on February 24th should be interpreted as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Whitetail v. Whitetail
...the State could legally exercise the extensive supervision recommended by both experts upon his release from prison. See State v. Garvin, 329 N.W.2d 621, 623 (N.D.1983) (sentencing court may not increase a legally imposed sentence); State v. Bryan, 316 N.W.2d 335, 338 (N.D.1982) (same). [¶ ......
-
State v. Eagleman
...for two reasons. [¶ 8] First, Eagleman argues the district court could not increase his term of imprisonment because in State v. Garvin, 329 N.W.2d 621, 623 (N.D.1983), this Court said “[t]he language in Rule 35 does not authorize a sentencing court to increase a sentence.” However, Garvin ......
-
Grosh, Application of, 15606
...was an increase in Grosh's sentence in violation of SDCL 23A-31-1. State v. Ford, 328 N.W.2d 263 (S.D.1982); see also State v. Garvin, 329 N.W.2d 621 (N.D.1983). SDCL 23A-31-1 is our adoption of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure The referee concluded that the December 5, 1986, sentence was......
-
State v. Hersch
...in an illegal manner, or reduce a sentence, State v. Bryan, 316 N.W.2d 335 (N.D.1982), but may not increase a sentence. State v. Garvin, 329 N.W.2d 621 (N.D.1983). None of these cases considered a resentencing after partial reversal of a multi-count sentence. We do not view them as preceden......