2023 ND 34 - State v. McLaughlin

                                                                              FILED
                                                                      IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                   CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                          MARCH 3, 2023
                                                                    STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA




                  IN THE SUPREME COURT
                  STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 34


State of North Dakota,                                  Plaintiff and Appellee
      v.
Timothy John McLaughlin,                            Defendant and Appellant



                                No. 20220252

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial
District, the Honorable David E. Reich, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Julie A. Lawyer, Burleigh County State’s Attorney, Bismarck, ND, for plaintiff
and appellee; submitted on brief.

William J. Delmore, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellant.
                             State v. McLaughlin
                                No. 20220252

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Timothy McLaughlin appeals from a district court’s criminal judgment
entered after a jury found him guilty of manslaughter and two counts of
aggravated reckless driving. The court sentenced McLaughlin to ten years’
imprisonment with all but eight years suspended for a period of two years
while on supervised probation on the class B felony count of manslaughter,
concurrently to 360 days’ imprisonment on each count of aggravated reckless
driving. On appeal, McLaughlin argues the impact of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-
09.1(1), which requires him to serve at least eighty-five percent of his sentence,
was too harsh and serves as a form of cruel and unusual punishment.
McLaughlin provides no legal authority for his argument. A party waives an
issue by not providing supporting argument and, without supportive reasoning
or citations to relevant authorities, an argument is without merit. State v.
Vaagen,

2020 ND 241, ¶ 9

950 N.W.2d 768

. We summarily affirm under
N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8).

[¶2] McLaughin also argues his sentence was impermissible because it was
too harsh based on the recommendations in his pre-sentence investigation
report. “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. Aune,

2021 ND 7, ¶ 10

953 N.W.2d 601

. The sentencing judge is allowed the widest range of discretion.

Id.

 The
district court’s sentence was within the statutory range of a class B felony. See
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-01(3). McLaughlin does not point to, nor does the record
show, the court substantially relied upon an impermissible factor when
sentencing McLaughlin. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
     Daniel J. Crothers
     Lisa Fair McEvers
     Jerod E. Tufte
     Daniel S. El-Dweek, D.J.



                                        1
[¶4] The Honorable Daniel S. El-Dweek, D.J., sitting in place of Bahr, J.,
disqualified.




                                    2