State v. Nelson

• Docket Number: 20230234,20230235
• Decision Date: 28 December 2023
• Parties: State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Mathew Nelson, Defendant and Appellant
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

1

2023 ND 246

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Mathew Nelson, Defendant and Appellant

Nos. 20230234, 20230235

Supreme Court of North Dakota

December 28, 2023

Appeal from the District Court of Divide County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Robin A. Schmidt, Judge.

Nathan K. Madden, Special Assistant State's Attorney, Williston, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.

Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellant.

2

OPINION

JENSEN, CHIEF JUSTICE.

[¶1] Mathew Nelson appeals from the criminal judgments imposed in two consolidated cases. Nelson argues the district court relied on impermissible factors rendering his sentence illegal and that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm.

I

[¶2] In the first case, Nelson was charged with sexual assault, a class A misdemeanor, and five counts of gross sexual imposition, class A felonies. In the second case, Nelson was charged with gross sexual imposition, a class A felony, and corruption of a minor, a class C felony. These cases were consolidated on appeal.

[¶3] On October 6, 2022, Nelson entered guilty pleas in both cases. The district court ordered a presentence investigation and psychosexual evaluation prior to sentencing. At the sentencing hearing, the court acknowledged it reviewed the file, heard arguments from the parties, and allowed statements from the child victims and their families. After pronouncing the sentence, the district court stated, "This is some of the most disturbing conduct I've seen in my ten years on the bench. The swath of destruction you have created is massive. I doubt I've seen the tip of the iceberg of the damage that has been caused." Nelson challenges the imposition of twenty years' imprisonment on each of six counts of gross sexual imposition, to run consecutively.

II

[¶4] Nelson argues the district court improperly considered arguments that Nelson was unable to control his behavior and relied on hypothetical harm to the victims that was not presented to the court by any party. Nelson further asserts the court based its sentencing decision on the subjective bias of the court arising from prior cases heard by the sentencing judge, not on the similarly situated defendants across the State and their sentences. Nelson

3

argues this constituted reliance on impermissible factors, rendering his sentence illegal.

[¶5] This Court's review of a sentence is generally confined to whether the district court acted within the statutory sentencing limits or substantially relied on an impermissible factor. State v. Gonzalez, 2011 ND 143, ¶ 6, 799 N.W.2d 402. A trial judge is allowed the widest range of discretion in determining the appropriate criminal sentence. State v. Corman, 2009 ND 85, ¶ 15, 765 N.W.2d 530. Within this discretion also lies a trial court's authority to decide whether a sentence should run concurrently or consecutively. State v. Salveson, 2006 ND 169, ¶ 4, 719 N.W.2d 747.

...