State of New Hampshire v. Ralph C. Alexander

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2016-0334, State of New Hampshire v. Ralph C.
Alexander, the court on April 25, 2017, issued the following
order:
Having considered the defendant’s brief, the State’s memorandum of law,
and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is
unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.
The defendant, Ralph C. Alexander, appeals a finding of guilty by the 6th
Circuit Court, Franklin District Division (Gordon, J.), following a bench trial,
on a charge of speeding that occurred in the Town of Northfield. See RSA
265:60 (Supp. 2016). He argues that the trial court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction, and that it erred by proceeding to trial without evidence of its
jurisdiction. He further argues that he was not sufficiently notified of the
charge, and that he did not receive “the correct calibration record” in discovery.
At the outset, we reject the State’s argument that the defendant has
waived his challenge to the trial court’s jurisdiction. See Attorney General, Dir.
Of Charitable Trusts v. Loreto Publ’ns, 169 N.H. 68, 71 (2016) (observing that a
party may challenge subject matter jurisdiction at any time and may not waive
it); Eby v. State, 166 N.H. 321, 337-38 n.7 (2014) (noting that subject matter
jurisdiction cannot be conferred by waiver).
We agree with the State, however, that the trial court had jurisdiction
over the speeding charge. See RSA 265:2, :60, V (2014 & Supp. 2016) (defining
violations of RSA chapter 265 as violation-level offenses, and establishing a
schedule of fines up to $350 for speeding violations); RSA 490-F:3, :4 (Supp.
2016) (granting circuit court all jurisdiction that was previously conferred upon
the district courts, and establishing that the judicial districts for the district
divisions “shall be as set forth in RSA 502-A:1”); RSA 502-A:1, XIV (Supp.
2016) (establishing that the Franklin district includes the Town of Northfield);
RSA 502-A:11 (Supp. 2016) (granting each district court original jurisdiction
over all “offenses committed within the confines of the district in which such
court is located which are punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,000”); RSA
625:9, V (2016) (defining “violation” as an “offense so designated by statute . . .
and . . . any offense defined outside of [the Criminal Code] for which there is no
other penalty provided other than a fine or fine and forfeiture or other civil
penalty”). We also agree with the State that the defendant’s non-jurisdictional
arguments are insufficiently developed to warrant review. State v. Blackmer,
149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003). Arguments raised in the defendant’s notice of appeal
that he has not briefed are likewise waived. Id.Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk
2