M E M O
TO:Joint Procedure Committee
RE:Uniform Procedure for Deferred Imposition of Sentence
This memo raises questions for the Committee's consideration. Guidance is needed, if a proposal is to be prepared for the next meeting.
1)Should procedures be adopted for incorporation into the Rules of Criminal Procedure to provide uniformity in the implementation of N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-07.1(2)?
2)Should a deferred imposition of sentence be entered as a deferred imposition on the case filing/disposition form and monitored by the clerk of court, or should a deferred imposition of sentence be entered as a judgment and treated as closed?
3)Should dismissal be automatic unless the state's attorney, or the court on its own motion, moves for revocation of probation or imposition of sentence? A self-executing provision providing for dismissal could be inserted in the order deferring imposition of sentence or terminating probation.
4)Should it be the responsibility of the state's attorney to move for dismissal, or should the judge order dismissal sue sponte, if a defendant complies with the conditions of the deferred imposition?
5)At the time imposition of sentence is deferred, should the defendant be advised of right to move for a dismissal?
6)Should the defendant be provided with an application form for dismissal at the time imposition of sentence is deferred or, when the period of deferment expires?
7)Should the clerk of court be responsible for monitoring the file for compliance with the conditions of the deferred imposition?
8)Should the state's attorney be informed of a request for dismissal?
Depending on how the Committee answers these questions, staff will prepare a proposal for the next meeting.