State v. McLaughlin ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20220252

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 3/3/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2023