State v. Schmeets

20070360 State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Jeffrey Schmeets, Defendant and Appellant

Appeal from: District Court, South Central Judicial District, Sheridan County
Judge Robert O. Wefald
Nature of Action: Drugs/Contraband
Counsel:
Appellant: Monty Jay Stensland
Appellee: Walter Mathias Lipp , State's Attorney
Term: 06/2008   Argument: 06/03/2008  09:00am
ND cite: 2008 ND 119
NW cite: 756 N.W.2d 344

Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
I.Whether the Defendant received sufficient notice as to what the State intended to prove at the revocation hearing.
II.Whether the State proved the specific allegations that the Defendant violated the conditions of probation as alleged in the Amended Petitions for Revocation of Probation.

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Did Schmeets properly preserve his claimed error.
2. If properly preserved was the error obvious.
3. Has the State presented proof of the violation of Allegation 3 by a preponderance of the evidence.

Add Docket 20070360 RSS Add Docket 20070360 RSS

Docket entries:
112/14/2007 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 12/13/2007
212/14/2007 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 12/13/2007
312/14/2007 This case is consolidated w/20070361; make all entries except DIS and MAN in this case
401/14/2008 TRANSCRIPT DATED November 16, 2007
501/14/2008 DISK - TRA dated November 16, 2007
601/14/2008 Certificate of Service for November 16, 2007 Transcript
701/18/2008 RECORD ON APPEAL
802/21/2008 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF (faxed letter from Steven Mottinger)
902/21/2008 E-FILED MOTION (MAT)
1002/21/2008 ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 03/24/2008
1103/24/2008 APPELLANT BRIEF
1203/24/2008 APPELLANT APPENDIX
1303/25/2008 DISK-ATB (electronic)
1404/03/2008 Request to file supplemental brief (letter dated April 1, 2008)
1504/03/2008 NO ACTION TAKEN (Mot/Supplemental Brief)
1604/22/2008 APPELLEE BRIEF
1704/22/2008 DISK - AEB (e-mailed)
1806/03/2008 APPEARANCES: Monty J. Stensland; Walter M. Lipp
1906/03/2008 ARGUED: Stensland; Lipp
2006/03/2008 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
2106/26/2008 Affirmed by Summary Disposition 35.1 (and remanded): AFFIRMED BY SUMMARY DISP.
2206/26/2008 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Per Curiam
2306/30/2008 Judgment e-mailed to Parties
2407/18/2008 MANDATE
2507/22/2008 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 12/01/2008