State v. Skarsgard
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
Rockwell Dean Skarsgard, Defendant and Appellant
North Central Judicial District,
Judge David W. Nelson
|Nature of Action:||Misc. Statutory Offense (Felony)|
|Term:||01/2008  Argument: 01/03/2008|
|ND cite:||2008 ND 31|
745 N.W.2d 358
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
I.Whether the definition of "offense" at N.D.C.C. 12.1-01-04 (20) defining same as conduct for which a term of imprisonment or a fine is authorized by statute "after conviction", and the definition of "conviction" as defined at N.D.C.C. 39-06-30 defining same as a final order or judgment of conviction by the North Dakota Supreme Court, any lower court having jurisdiction, a tribal court, or a court in another state "provided that no appeal is pending" and the time for filing a notice of appeal has elapsed, means: (1) there was no "conviction" in this case, since there was an appeal pending at the time of the District Court Criminal Judgments dated October 30, 2006, and entered November 1, 2006; and by extension, that (2) all of the criteria for the existence of an "offense" did not exist?
II.Whether Skarsgard's Miranda rights were violated on May 18, 2006, by virtue of his having been questioned after he had been placed under arrest without having been read his Miranda rights?
III.Whether there is any basis for the charge of Resisting Arrest, when at time Skarsgard was reportedly Resisting Arrest he had not been told by the officer that he was under arrest, nor had he been read his Miranda rights, which should have been read to him at the time of any arrest?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
A. Whether the District Court properly used prior convictions of the defendant following jury trials to enhance the APC conviction in the present case to a class C Felony offense for sentencing purposes.
B. Whether the issue of Miranda Rights is an appealable issue in this case.
C. Whether there was a sufficient basis for the charge of Resisting Arrest in this case.
|Add Docket 20070223 RSS|
|1||08/09/2007 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 08/07/2007|
|2||08/17/2007 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 08/16/2007|
|3||09/07/2007 RECORD ON APPEAL including separate exhibits and transcript dated July 13, 2006|
|4||10/02/2007 TRANSCRIPT DATED July 27, 2007|
|5||10/02/2007 DISK of tra dtd 7-27-07|
|6||11/09/2007 APPELLANT BRIEF (e-filed)|
|7||11/09/2007 E-FILED BRIEF (ATB)|
|8||11/09/2007 APPELLANT APPENDIX (e-filed) PDF|
|9||11/09/2007 E-FILED APPENDIX (ATA)|
|10||11/19/2007 Received 7 copies of ATB from Central Duplicating Services|
|11||11/19/2007 Received 6 copies of ATA from Central Duplicating Services|
|12||11/21/2007 Received $25 efiling surcharge through IDB; see journal entry 0000560886|
|13||12/10/2007 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLEE BRIEF|
|14||12/10/2007 E-FILED MOTION (MAE, by facsimile)|
|15||12/10/2007 ACTION BY CLERK (still on January term). Granted: 12/14/2007|
|16||12/13/2007 APPELLEE BRIEF|
|17||12/14/2007 Affidavit of Service by Mail of AEB on Mr. Douglas|
|18||12/18/2007 Received copies of corrected TOA and page for Appellee Brief|
|19||12/18/2007 DISK - AEB|
|20||01/03/2008 APPEARANCES: Mark S. Douglas; Mark A. Flagstad|
|21||01/03/2008 ARGUED: Douglas; Flagstgad|
|22||01/03/2008 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|23||02/21/2008 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED|
|24||02/21/2008 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Kapsner, Carol Ronning|
|25||02/25/2008 Judgment e-mailed to Parties|
|27||03/24/2008 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|28||04/30/2018 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|