State v. Nelson

¶1Filed 1/26/17 by Clerk of Supreme Court

¶2IN THE SUPREME COURT

¶3STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

¶4

¶5

¶6

¶72017 ND 2

¶8

¶9

¶10

¶11State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

¶12

¶13v.

¶14

¶15George Nelson, III, Defendant and Appellant

¶16

¶17

¶18

¶19Nos. 20160224 & 20160225

¶20

¶21

¶22

¶23Appeal from the District Court of McLean County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick, Judge.

¶24

¶25AFFIRMED.

¶26

¶27Per Curiam.

¶28

¶29Ladd R. Erickson, McLean County State’s Attorney, P.O. Box 1108, Washburn, ND 58577-1108, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

¶30

¶31Alex S. Kelsch, P.O. Box 1266, Mandan, ND 58554-7266, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.

¶32State v. Nelson

¶33Nos. 20160224 & 20160225

¶34

¶35Per Curiam.

¶36[¶1] George Nelson III, appealed the district court’s order for restitution. Nelson argued the district court erred when it failed to deduct the proper amount of materials and labor he provided to each of the victims. Nelson also argued the district court erred in finding he had the ability to pay the amount of restitution. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of restitution, we affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). State v. Vick , 1998 ND 214, ¶ 4, 587 N.W.2d 567 (Appellate review of a trial court’s sentence “will be confined to whether the trial court acted within the limits prescribed by the statute.” This standard of review is similar to the abuse of discretion standard.); State v. Tupa , 2005 ND 25, ¶ 9, 691 N.W.2d 579 (“The trial judge’s restitution award is within the range of reasonableness and is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and, therefore, the trial court acted within the confines of the restitution statute and did not abuse its discretion.”).

¶37[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

¶38Carol Ronning Kapsner

¶39Lisa Fair McEvers

¶40Daniel J. Crothers

¶41Jerod E. Tufte