Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2018 ND 215

State v. Seidel

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided September 25, 2018

North Dakota Supreme Court · decided 2018-09-25

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 2020

1 state decisions

Relies on State v. Kieper · State v. McClean

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2018-09-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 [¶ 1] Pamela Marie Seidel appeals from a criminal judgment sentencing her to the maximum period of incarceration (30 days) and 360 days of unsupervised probation. As a condition of probation, Seidel was ordered to participate in North Dakota's 24/7 Sobriety Program ("24/7 Program") after her plea of guilty to driving under the influence. On appeal, Seidel argues that because she had already served the maximum period of incarceration for a class B misdemeanor, it was improper to place her on probation and order her participation in the 24/7 Program. Although not argued to the district court, Seidel asserts her placement in the 24/7 Program unconstitutionally restricts her right to travel under both the United States Constitution and the North Dakota Constitution. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). See State v. McClean , 1998 ND 21 , ¶ 8, 575 N.W.2d 200 ("The Legislature did not restrict a trial court from imposing both a maximum probation sentence and a maximum imprisonment sentence for misdemeanors."); see also State v. Kieper, 2008 ND 65 , ¶ 16, 747 N.W.2d 497 (constitutional issues will not be considered for the first time on appeal).

¶2 [¶ 2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

¶3 Jon J. Jensen

¶4 Lisa Fair McEvers

¶5 Daniel J. Crothers

¶6 Jerod E. Tufte

/2018/nd/215 · .json · Public domain