State v. Neigum, Cr. N
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota |
| Citation | 369 N.W.2d 375 |
| Docket Number | Cr. N |
| Parties | STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. John NEIGUM, Defendant and Appellant. o. 1072. |
| Decision Date | 10 June 1985 |
Page 375
v.
John NEIGUM, Defendant and Appellant.
Page 376
John P. Van Grinsven, III, Asst. State's Atty., Minot, for plaintiff and appellee.
John Neigum, pro se.
MESCHKE, Justice.
John Neigum, acting pro se, appeals from a "Certificate and Order Assessing Costs" which ordered him to pay $1,460 in court-appointed attorney fees and expenses, and $180 in "Court ordered restitution Buy money."
Neigum was charged with two class B felony counts of delivery of a controlled substance. At his arraignment on May 31, 1984, Neigum entered a plea of guilty to one of the counts. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the other count was dismissed and Neigum was sentenced to a term of one year at the State Farm. Neigum was permitted to serve the sentence at the Ward County Jail, where he was granted work-release privileges. The sentence further ordered Neigum to pay $180 restitution for the "buy money" used in the drug transactions and that Neigum "shall pay costs of prosecution within 90 days" of May 31, 1984.
Neigum subsequently violated the terms of his work-release privileges and he was transferred to the State Farm on October 4, 1984, to complete his sentence. The State did not certify to the district court the number of hours involved in court-appointed counsel's representation of Neigum until November 1984. The court found that the amount of attorney fees and restitution was justified, and ordered the same assessed against the defendant "as part of the Criminal Judgment and Sentence." A "Certificate and Order Assessing Costs" was entered on November 15, 1984, from which Neigum appeals.
The State has filed a motion to dismiss Neigum's appeal. The State first asserts that the "Certificate and Order Assessing Costs" is not an appealable order under Sec. 29-28-06(5), N.D.C.C., and because the time for appeal from the May 31, 1984, criminal judgment has long passed under Rule 4(b), N.D.R.App.P., Neigum's appeal must be dismissed.
This court was faced with a somewhat analogous situation in State v. Chyle, 297 N.W.2d 409 (N.D.1980). In Chyle, a criminal judgment and order deferring imposition of sentence was filed on February 29, 1980. An amended criminal judgment and order deferring imposition of sentence, which added a provision relating to restitution, was filed on March 5, 1980. On March 14, 1980, the defendant filed a notice
Page 377
of appeal from the judgment entered on March 5. The State moved to dismiss the appeal, asserting that the defendant had failed, under Rule 4(b), N.D.R.App.P., to give notice of appeal within 10 days of entry of the original criminal judgment on February 29, 1980. We denied the State's motion, stating:"In light of the fact that the amended judgment in this case did not go to the essence of Chyle's conviction, it would appear that he may have been the beneficiary of several extra days in which to decide whether or not to file an appeal. However, to strictly interpret Rule 4(b), N.D.R.App.P., and its counterpart, Rule 37(b),...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ringquist, Cr. N
...that exclusion will be little different from the 'totality of the circumstances' standard of review of Gates, ..." State v. Thompson, 369 N.W.2d at 375 (VandeWalle, J., concurring specially). So, too, I conclude that our application of the totality-of-the-circumstances test of Gates will no......
-
State v. Fischer, 20060153.
...pro se status does not relieve him of the requirement of strict compliance with procedural rules.'" Id. (quoting State v. Neigum, 369 N.W.2d 375, 377 [¶ 25] One rule applicable to Fischer and all others who attempt to appeal is N.D.R.App.P. 30(a)(1), which provides: "Only items in the recor......
-
State v. DuPaul
...lacks understanding of those rules or the correct procedures. Sandbeck v. Rockwell, 524 N.W.2d 846, 851 (N.D.1994). State v. Neigum, 369 N.W.2d 375, 377 (N.D.1985), explained: "A defendant's pro se status does not relieve him of the requirement of strict compliance with procedural rules" on......
-
State v. Mosbrucker, 20070355.
...Everson v. Northland Life Ins. Co., 329 N.W.2d 592, 595 (N.D.1983), the filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. State v. Neigum, 369 N.W.2d 375, 377-78 (N.D.1985). Because Mosbrucker did not file an amended or additional notice of appeal from the order denying his motion for a new t......