State v. Jefferson Park Books, Inc., Cr. N
Decision Date | 22 December 1981 |
Docket Number | Cr. N |
Citation | 314 N.W.2d 73 |
Parties | STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JEFFERSON PARK BOOKS, INC., an Illinois Corporation doing business in NorthDakota, Defendant and Appellant. o. 774. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Richard Schnell, State's Atty., Mandan, for plaintiff and appellee.
Teevens, Johnson & Montgomery, Minot, for defendant and appellant; argued by Bruce Montgomery, Minot.
The defendant, Jefferson Park Books, Inc. (Jefferson Park), appeals from an order denying its motion for a reduction of sentence. The sentence was imposed after the Morton County Court with Increased Jurisdiction found Jefferson Park guilty on two counts of violating North Dakota Century Code § 57-39.2-18(2).
Sometime in December 1980 Jefferson Park applied for a Sales and Use Tax Permit with the North Dakota State Tax Department for a bookstore which it planned to locate in Bismarck, North Dakota. The Bismarck location was abandoned. Jefferson Park, through an agent, indicated to the Tax Department that it was looking for another location for the bookstore and inquired as to whether or not a different location would make a difference on their application for a sales and use tax permit. The Tax Department informed Jefferson Park that notification of the new address would be required before the bookstore could begin business.
Jefferson Park subsequently located the Rendezvous Book Store in Mandan, North Dakota, and began operation of the bookstore on or before 6 Jan 1981 without notifying the Tax Department of the address change. 1 As such the bookstore was operating without a sales and use tax permit and without a valid application pending.
On 6 Jan 1981 the Tax Department authorized two agents, Gary Anderson (Anderson) and Parrell D. Grossman (Grossman) to go into the bookstore and purchase magazines. Anderson purchased a magazine for $4.64, of which 14 cents was calculated as sales tax. Grossman purchased a magazine for $4.12, of which 12 cents was calculated as sales tax. Gross and Anderson reported these sales to the Tax Commissioner, Kent Conrad (Conrad), who personally went into the bookstore and informed the sales clerk that he was operating the bookstore in violation of the North Dakota sales and use tax law. Conrad told the sales clerk to close the bookstore or he would proceed to have a criminal complaint signed. The sales clerk refused to close the bookstore and a two-count criminal complaint was brought against Jefferson Park alleging that each sale was a separate violation of NDCC § 57-39.2-18(2).
A jury trial was waived and the Morton County Court with Increased Jurisdiction found Jefferson Park guilty on both counts. Each count was a class A misdemeanor carrying with it a maximum fine of $15,000 for a corporation. 2 (NDCC § 12.1-32-01.1(4).) For each count the judge imposed a fine of $15,000 with $10,000 suspended on the following conditions:
Jefferson Park then moved, pursuant to Rule 35, North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure, for a reduction of sentence. After a hearing on the motion, at which time arguments were made by counsel for Jefferson Park and the State, the court entered an order denying Jefferson Park's motion for a reduction of sentence. Jefferson Park appealed from that order.
Our initial consideration is whether or not an appeal is authorized from the order denying the defendant a reduction of sentence.
The right of appeal in this State is statutory. Sheets v. Letnes, Marshall & Fiedler, 311 N.W.2d 175 (N.D.1981). The right to appeal is a jurisdictional matter which we may consider sua sponte. City of Bismarck v. Walker, 308 N.W.2d 359 (N.D.1981); Huso v. Bismarck Public School Board, 219 N.W.2d 100 (N.D.1974).
During oral argument, counsel for Jefferson Park urged that the order issued by the county court affected a substantial legal right of Jefferson Park and was appealable pursuant to NDCC § 29-28-06(5). 3
The State is entitled to notice of a defendant's motion for reduction of sentence and if an ex parte order is issued by the court under Rule 35, NDRCrimP, it affects the substantial right of the State which did not receive notice of the motion and is appealable by the State. State v. Rueb, 249 N.W.2d 506 (N.D.1976); NDCC § 29-28-07(4). 4 A substantial right is the right to notice and the opportunity to be heard. It does not contemplate that certain action will be taken, nor does it relate to the action taken, unless the action taken is not authorized or is not exercised pursuant to and under the authority granted by Rule 35. In Rueb, supra, the trial court, without giving or requiring notice to be given to the State, entertained and disposed of an application for reduction of sentence and as such it affected a substantial right of the State.
However, in the instant case the defendant was not only given an opportunity to be heard but was actually heard and, therefore, no substantial right of the defendant was affected in this respect. The defendant has a right to apply for and have the court consider the reduction but that right does not assure a reduction. Whether or not a reduction should be given, in certain instances, is not a right but is basically a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court after being fully advised on the subject matter and after giving the opposing parties an opportunity to be heard. In this respect Rueb, supra, was concerned primarily with procedure in the application and hearing of the reduction as affecting a substantial right and not the validity of the sentence per se, which is the situation in the instant matter.
If Rule 35, NDRCrimP, were construed to require that a reduction of a sentence must be given upon application under any and all conditions, it would bring about an absurd result and would raise some interesting constitutional and legal questions. Among them would be: how much of a reduction would be proper; would a reduction of one penny on the fine imposed be adequate; would a one day or one hour reduction from incarceration be adequate?
Jefferson Park, during oral argument and in its written brief, argued that the sentence imposed was illegal because it imposed the maximum fine for a first offense. Its contention and argument centered on the validity of the sentence rather than on anything the court did at the reduction hearing under Rule 35, NDRCrimP. The remedy, if any, however, was either by a direct appeal of the judgment or by a proper application under the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act, NDCC Ch. 29-32, and not from an order denying a reduction under Rule 35.
The Legislature basically determines what is appealable. Sheets v. Letnes, Marshall & Fiedler, Ltd., supra. This is recognized in NDCC § 29-32-01(2) of the post-conviction act, which provides:
(Emphasis added.)
Furthermore, House Bill No. 1052, 5 which would have permitted an appeal of the sentence only, was considered by the 1979...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Neilan
...Neilan argues the State's right to appeal is limited by State v. Rueb , 249 N.W.2d 506 (N.D. 1976) and State v. Jefferson Park Books, Inc. , 314 N.W.2d 73 (N.D. 1981). In Rueb , the defendant moved for a reduction of sentence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35. 249 N.W.2d at 507. The State did not rece......
-
State v. Moore, 20020305.
...it comes within the provisions of a specific statute. State v. Peterson, 334 N.W.2d 483, 484 (N.D.1983) (citing State v. Jefferson Park Books, Inc., 314 N.W.2d 73, 75 (N.D.1981)). Although "[s]tatutes conferring the right to appeal must be liberally construed to maintain the right to appeal......
-
First Trust Co. of North Dakota v. Conway
...and not this court, controls the right to appeal. City of Riverside v. Smuda, 339 N.W.2d 768 (N.D.1983); State v. Jefferson Park Books, Inc., 314 N.W.2d 73 (N.D.1981); Sheets v. Letnes, Marshall & Fiedler, Ltd., 311 N.W.2d 175 (N.D.1981). The right to appeal is statutory. The party attempti......
-
Rahn v. State, 20070022.
...is an application for leniency which is left within the sound discretion of the trial court. Gunwall, at 184; State v. Jefferson Park Books, Inc., 314 N.W.2d 73, 76 (N.D.1981). Accordingly, an order denying a motion for reduction of sentence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(b) does not affect a subst......