State v. Jones, No. 20020104.

CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtNEUMANN, Justice.
Citation2002 ND 163,652 N.W.2d 369
Decision Date15 October 2002
Docket NumberNo. 20020104.
PartiesSTATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Andre JONES, Defendant and Appellant.

652 N.W.2d 369
2002 ND 163

STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
Andre JONES, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20020104.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

October 15, 2002.


652 N.W.2d 370
Richard E. Edinger, Fargo, ND, for defendant and appellant

Wade L. Webb, Assistant State's Attorney, Fargo, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.

NEUMANN, Justice.

[¶ 1] Andre Jones appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to extend the time to appeal. We affirm.

[¶ 2] On November 28, 2001, the State petitioned to revoke Andre Jones's probation. At the revocation hearing on February 4, 2002, the trial court ruled Jones had willfully violated conditions of probation. The trial court revoked Jones's earlier sentence and resentenced him to five year's imprisonment. The trial court did not inform Jones of his right to appeal and his right to the assistance of court-appointed counsel. Jones filed a notice of appeal on February 27, 2002, and the State moved to dismiss the appeal because it was untimely. Jones moved to extend the time to appeal, under N.D.R.App.P. 4(b)(3) and N.D.R.Crim.P. 37(b)(3), arguing excusable neglect because Jones was not informed of his right to appeal by the trial court. The trial court denied the motion, stating Jones did not have to be notified of such right. Jones appeals.

[¶ 3] Jones argues the trial court was required to notify him of his right to appeal the revocation of his probation and its failure to do so constituted excusable neglect. Jones maintains that because of the excusable neglect, the late filing of his notice of appeal on February 27, 2002, was within the extra thirty-day period allowed under the North Dakota Rules of Criminal and Appellate Procedure and the filing was therefore timely.

[¶ 4] In the case at bar, we are asked to determine whether excusable neglect exists to extend the time to appeal when the trial court did not inform the defendant of his right to appeal the order revoking probation.

[¶ 5] A trial court has sound discretion in deciding a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal based on excusable neglect. State v. Latendresse, 450 N.W.2d 781, 782 (N.D.1990). We review a trial court's decision on a motion to extend the time to file an appeal for an abuse of discretion. Id. A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner. Id.

[¶ 6] In a criminal case, a defendant's appeal "must be filed with the clerk of the trial court within...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • State v. Fischer, No. 20060153.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • February 28, 2007
    ...[¶ 6] We review a district court's decision on a motion to extend the time to file an appeal for an abuse of discretion. State v. Jones, 2002 ND 163, ¶ 5, 652 N.W.2d 369. A district court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner. Redfield v.......
  • State v. Causer, No. 20030124.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • April 13, 2004
    ...Under Rule 32(f), the trial court is not obligated to advise a defendant of his right to appeal from the revocation. State v. Jones, 2002 ND 163, ¶ 7, 652 N.W.2d 369. Causer was not entitled to notice of his right to appeal and the trial court did not err by failing to provide such notice. ......
  • Quamme v. Bellino, No. 20020024.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • October 15, 2002
    ...does not necessarily terminate the payment of spousal support, neither case considered whether the "general rule" applied. 652 N.W.2d 369 [¶ 31] The "general rule" is more in keeping with the expectations of support. It is an obligation which relates to the existing need......
  • State v. Grzeskowiak, No. 20140126.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • September 23, 2014
    ...neglect. State v. DuPaul, 527 N.W.2d 238, 243–44 (N.D.1995) ; Nastrom v. Nastrom, 1998 ND 75, ¶ 8, 576 N.W.2d 215 ; State v. Jones, 2002 ND 163, ¶ 7, 652 N.W.2d 369 ; Leftbear v. State, 2007 ND 14, ¶¶ 6, 10, 727 N.W.2d 252. We conclude the district court's denial of the motion did not const......
4 cases
  • State v. Fischer, No. 20060153.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • February 28, 2007
    ...[¶ 6] We review a district court's decision on a motion to extend the time to file an appeal for an abuse of discretion. State v. Jones, 2002 ND 163, ¶ 5, 652 N.W.2d 369. A district court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner. Redfield v.......
  • State v. Causer, No. 20030124.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • April 13, 2004
    ...Under Rule 32(f), the trial court is not obligated to advise a defendant of his right to appeal from the revocation. State v. Jones, 2002 ND 163, ¶ 7, 652 N.W.2d 369. Causer was not entitled to notice of his right to appeal and the trial court did not err by failing to provide such notice. ......
  • Quamme v. Bellino, No. 20020024.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • October 15, 2002
    ...does not necessarily terminate the payment of spousal support, neither case considered whether the "general rule" applied. 652 N.W.2d 369 [¶ 31] The "general rule" is more in keeping with the expectations of support. It is an obligation which relates to the existing need......
  • State v. Grzeskowiak, No. 20140126.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • September 23, 2014
    ...neglect. State v. DuPaul, 527 N.W.2d 238, 243–44 (N.D.1995) ; Nastrom v. Nastrom, 1998 ND 75, ¶ 8, 576 N.W.2d 215 ; State v. Jones, 2002 ND 163, ¶ 7, 652 N.W.2d 369 ; Leftbear v. State, 2007 ND 14, ¶¶ 6, 10, 727 N.W.2d 252. We conclude the district court's denial of the motion did not const......

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