State v. Higgins

Decision Date13 October 1966
Docket NumberNo. C,C
Citation145 N.W.2d 478
PartiesThe STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Milton HIGGINS, Defendant and Appellant. r. 342.
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. The right of appeal is not conferred by the Constitution. An appeal to the Supreme Court may be had only under the regulations that may be prescribed by law.

2. In order for the Supreme Court to obtain jurisdiction on appeal in a criminal case it is necessary that statutory requirement of service and filing of notice of appeal as provided by the statute be followed.

3. Service of the notice of appeal to the Supreme Court is jurisdictional and cannot be waived by the parties nor conferred by consent.

4. An appeal from a judgment of conviction in a criminal case is not a matter of absolute right and is not a necessary element of due process under the Federal Constitution.

5. Where there is a complete failure to serve a notice of appeal in a criminal case, the Supreme Court does not obtain jurisdiction, and the omission is not curable under Sections 29--28--20 or 29--28--21, N.D.C.C., providing for curing irregularities, informalities, or defects in criminal appeals.

Helgi Johanneson, Atty. Gen., Albert A. Wolf, State's Atty., and Gerald G. Glaser, Asst. State's Atty., Bismarck, for plaintiff and respondent.

Vogel & Bair, Mandan, for defendant and appellant.

TEIGEN, Chief Justice.

On motion by the State to dismiss a criminal appeal.

After a jury trial in the County Court With Increased Jurisdiction, the defendant was convicted of malicious mischief. He has attempted to appeal from the judgment of conviction. The State moved this Court to dismiss the appeal on the ground that appellate jurisdiction has not attached because of failure to serve a notice of appeal. The record certified to us discloses a notice of appeal was timely filed with the clerk of court, but there is no proof of service. The defendant makes no claim that he made service of the notice of appeal.

Appeals from decisions of the county courts with increased jurisdiction in criminal actions are governed by the provisions of law and rules of practice and procedure applicable to the district courts. Section 27--08--24, N.D.C.C. Appeals from the decisions of the district courts to the supreme court are subject to regulations by statute. North Dakota Constitution, sections 86 and 109. No right of appeal is conferred by the Constitution. That right is left to statutory provisions, and must be exercised in accordance therewith. State v. McClelland, 72 N.D. 665, 10 N.W.2d 798.

The pertinent statutes respecting the taking of an appeal in criminal cases are as follows:

29--28--09. Manner of taking appeal. Notice. An appeal is taken by serving upon the adverse party, or the attorney for the adverse party who acted as an attorney of record in the district court at the trial or at the time the order was made or judgment rendered, a copy of the notice of appeal and by filing the original thereof with the clerk of the district court of the county in which the order or judgment appealed from is made, entered, or filed.

29--28--10. Personal service impossible. Publication. If personal service cannot be made, the judge of the district court in which the action is pending or was tried, upon proof thereof, may make an order for publication of the notice in a legal newspaper for a period not exceeding thirty days. Such publication is equivalent to personal service.

29--28--11. When appeal deemed taken. An appeal is deemed to be taken when notice thereof, served as required by sections 29--28--09 and 29--28--10, is filed in the office of the clerk of the district court of the county in which the order or judgment appealed from is made, entered, or filed, with evidence of the service or publication thereof endorsed thereon or attached thereto.

The statutes require two steps in taking a criminal appeal: (1) the service of a notice of appeal upon the adverse party; and (2) filing the original notice of appeal with the clerk of court. An appeal is deemed to be taken when a notice thereof, served as required by law, is filed in the office of the clerk. These statutes nowhere declare that either one of the two prerequisite steps is more important than the other in the process of taking an appeal, nor is there any intimation that either service or the filing can be omitted. Each of these steps serves a purpose. The service of the notice of appeal is to give notice to the adverse party, and the filing of the notice of appeal with proof of service is to give notice to the clerk, whose duty it then becomes to send the record up to the Supreme Court. Section 29--28--18, N.D.C.C. Service of the notice of appeal and the filing of the notice of appeal are necessary under the statutes to confer jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties on the Supreme Court.

The rule that the service of the notice of appeal is necessary to confer jurisdiction upon the appellate court is applied in other jurisdictions having statutes similar to ours. State v. Garrett, 228 Or. 1, 363 P.2d 762; State ex rel. Treat v. District Court, 124 Mont. 234, 221 P.2d 436; State v. Newman, 36 N.J.Super. 506, 116 A.2d 585; State v. Alm, 246 Minn. 568, 75 N.W.2d 212; State v. Collins, 260 Minn. 171, 109 N.W.2d 327; State v. Young, 255 Iowa 447, 122 N.W.2d 847; State v. Thomas, 238 Iowa 998, 29 N.W.2d 198; Scott v. State, Okl.Cr., 401 P.2d 1004; State v. Leopard, 191 Kan. 581, 382 P.2d 330; Marshall v. State, 89 Ind.App. 470, 166 N.E. 777; State v. Preston, 30 Nev. 301, 95 P. 918, 97 P. 388; State v. Berg, 35 Wash.2d 177, 211 P.2d 710.

In his return to the motion, the defendant sets up the ground that the respondent is estopped from challenging the validity of the appeal by admitting service of a copy of the transcript of the evidence and by stipulating the settlement of the statement of the case, and in doing these things failing to make mention that the State had not been served with notice of appeal, thus misleading defendant's counsel into thinking that the appeal was properly taken. This ground was not argued by the defendant in his brief and may be considered as having been abandoned. We assume this was intentional, because it is a well-established rule that jurisdiction of the subject matter cannot be conferred by agreement, consent, or waiver. Jurisdictional defects cannot be waived. Appellate jurisdiction is derived from constitutional or statutory provisions, and can be exercised only in the manner prescribed. Appellate jurisdiction being dependent on the law, it cannot be conferred by consent of the parties. 4 Am.Jur.2d, Appeal and Error, section 10; 4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 43; Gold Street v. Newton, 2 Dak. 39, 3 N.W. 311.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • State v. Tinsley, Cr. N
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • October 20, 1982
    ...that the memorandum opinion is not appealable. Chas. F. Ellis Agency, Inc. v. Berg, 214 N.W.2d 507, 509 (N.D.1974); State v. Higgins, 145 N.W.2d 478, 480-481 (N.D.1966). We have previously held that a memorandum decision is generally not appealable. State v. Gelvin, 318 N.W.2d 302, 304 n. 1......
  • Honomichl v. State
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • May 18, 1983
    ...v. State, 325 N.W.2d 297 (S.D.1982). Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement, consent, or waiver. State v. Higgins, 145 N.W.2d 478 (N.D.1966); see also, State v. Cochrun, 328 N.W.2d 271 (S.D.1983). A reviewing court is required to consider the issue of subject matter ju......
  • Disciplinary Action Against Dvorak, Matter of
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1998
    ...from a judgment, even in a criminal case, is not a necessary element of due process under the federal constitution. State v. Higgins, 145 N.W.2d 478, 481 (N.D.1966). See also Johnson v. Fankell, 520 U.S. 911, ---- n. 13, 117 S.Ct. 1800, 1807 n. 13, 138 L.Ed.2d 108 (1997); McKane v. Durston,......
  • Eaton v. State
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • May 22, 2001
    ...waiver; and jurisdictional defects are not waived by a plea of guilty. State v. Grenz, 243 N.W.2d 375, 379 (N.D.1976); State v. Higgins, 145 N.W.2d 478, 480 (N.D.1966)." In our prior cases, as in Tinsley, the jurisdictional argument is generally one of subject-matter jurisdiction, where, fo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT