State v. Gray ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                 Filed 10/03/19 by Clerk of Supreme Court
    IN THE SUPREME COURT
    STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
    
    2019 ND 238
    State of North Dakota,                                Plaintiff and Appellee
    v.
    David Gray,                                        Defendant and Appellant
    No. 20190031
    Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial
    District, the Honorable Douglas Alan Bahr, Judge.
    AFFIRMED.
    Per Curiam.
    Mindy L. Anderson, Assistant State’s Attorney, Bismarck, N.D., for plaintiff
    and appellee.
    David B. Gray, self-represented, Bismarck, N.D., defendant and appellant;
    submitted on brief.
    Paul R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General, Bismarck, N.D., for amicus
    curiae State of North Dakota.
    State v. Gray
    No. 20190031
    Per Curiam.
    [¶1] David Gray appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him
    guilty of preventing arrest. He argues N.D.C.C. § 2.1-08-02         1         is
    unconstitutional because it is vague and the district court erred in denying his
    motion to dismiss. He also argues insufficient evidence supported probable
    cause to charge him, insufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict, and his
    sentence was excessive and unlawful.
    [¶2] We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7). See State v.
    Skarsgard, 
    2007 ND 160
    , ¶ 6, 
    739 N.W.2d 786
     (“A party’s failure to provide a
    transcript of the proceedings in the district court may prevent the party from
    prevailing on appeal. We will not review an issue if the record on appeal does
    not allow for a meaningful and intelligent review of the district court’s alleged
    error.” (citations omitted)); State v. Noack, 
    2007 ND 82
    , ¶¶ 8, 10, 
    732 N.W.2d 389
     (This Court “will not consider an argument that is not adequately
    articulated, supported, and briefed,” because without adequate briefing and
    citation to authority, we are unable to meaningfully review alleged errors.);
    State v. Kensmoe, 
    2001 ND 190
    , ¶ 17, 
    636 N.W.2d 183
     (“[A] question not raised
    or considered in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”).
    [¶3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
    Jerod E. Tufte
    Daniel J. Crothers
    Lisa Fair McEvers
    Jon J. Jensen
    1
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20190031

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 10/3/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/3/2019