State v. Goldsack

• Citation: 923 N.W.2d 137 (Mem)
• Decision Date: 21 February 2019
• Docket Number: 20180266,Nos. 20180265,s. 20180265
• Parties: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Daniel Lynn GOLDSACK, Defendant and Appellant
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota

923 N.W.2d 137 (Mem)

STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Daniel Lynn GOLDSACK, Defendant and Appellant

Nos. 20180265
20180266

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Filed February 21, 2019

Justin J. Schwarz, Assistant State’s Attorney, Bismarck, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Russell J. Myhre, Enderlin, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Daniel Goldsack appeals from a district court’s second amended criminal judgments revoking his probation. Goldsack argues the district court clearly erred in finding a probation violation occurred and the State did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence Goldsack violated the conditions of his probation. We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4) and (7). See, e.g., State v. McAvoy , 2007 ND 178, ¶¶ 9, 18, 741 N.W.2d 198 (holding the trial court’s factual findings of a probation violation were not clearly erroneous and concluding the court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the defendant’s probation).

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jon J. Jensen

Jerod E. Tufte