| Issues: | Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
I.Whether the Defendant was denied due process when the Information was substantially different than the amended complaint.
II.Whether the Defendant was denied due process when the Court incorrectly informed Defendant of the minimum mandatory sentence?Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
ISSUE I. Whether Defendant was provided due process regarding applicability of a mandatory minimum sentence when, prior to trial, Defendant saw references to N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-02.1 in the complaints and amended complaints; heard many references to
the use of a firearm in the preliminary hearing; reviewed the informations that specifically alleged use of a firearm and cited chapter N.D.C.C. 12.1-32; answered "yes" at the preliminary hearing when the judge asked him if he understood that there
was a mandatory minimum sentence being sought by the State; and received a trial memorandum wherein reference of use of a shotgun was made several times?
ISSUE II. Whether Defendant was provided due process regarding applicability of a two-year mandatory minimum sentence when, prior to trial, Defendant responded "yes" to a question of the judge whether he understood that there was a minimum sentence
of one year for each of seven felony charges if he were convicted; Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment on each of five guilty judgments; and Defendant was sentenced to serve all five two-year sentences concurrently, rather than
consecutively?
|