Interest of M.W.
In the Interest of M.W., a child
Divide County Sheriff's Department,
by Lauren Throntveit, Petitioner and Appellee
M.W., a child, T.F, mother,
and C.W., father, Respondents and Appellants
Northwest Judicial District,
Judge Gerald H. Rustad
|Nature of Action:||Juvenile Law (Criminal)|
|Term:||06/2010  Argument: 06/28/2010|
|ND cite:||2010 ND 135|
785 N.W.2d 211
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
I.Did the Juvenile Court error in transferring counts 4 and 5 of the juvenile petition to District Court?
II.Did the Juvenile Court lack jurisdiction when it issued its transfer order?
III.Did the State intentionally delay the prosecution to avoid Juvenile Court jurisdiction?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Is the juvenile court's Order Transferring Counts 4 and 5 of the Amended Petition an appealable order?
II. In the event that the juvenile court's Order Transferring Counts 4 and 5 of the Amended Petition is an appealable order, is this matter moot, thus requiring a dismissal of the appeal?
III. Under N.D.C.C. 27-20-34(8), may the State charge M.W. in district court without the necessity of a juvenile court order transferring jurisdiction?
A. It is uncontested that M.W. was 20 or more years of age at time of the juvenile court's order.
B. It is uncontested that M.W. is charged with committing the gross sexual imposition offenses while he was a child.
C. The alleged delinquent acts have not yet been adjudicated in juvenile court.
D. The State has not intentionally delayed the prosecution to avoid juvenile court jurisdiction.
IV. In the event that a transfer order is necessary to charge M.W. in district court, did the juvenile court properly transfer Counts 4 and 5 of the Amended Petition to district court?
|Add Docket 20100047 RSS|
|1||02/09/2010 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 02/05/2010|
|2||02/09/2010 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 02/05/2010|
|3||02/10/2010 Notice of Mot. to Dismiss Appeal on Grounds of Mootness, Motion and Brief in Support.. RspDue: 02/22/2010|
|4||02/22/2010 Response to Not. of Mot. to Dismiss Appeal on Grounds of Mootness Filed.(e-filed)|
|5||02/26/2010 TRANSCRIPT DATED AUGUST 10, 2009, & C.O.S.|
|6||02/26/2010 DISK-TRA (8/10/09) e-mailed|
|7||03/03/2010 Motion to Dismiss deferred until consideration of merits of the appeal|
|8||03/03/2010 RECORD ON APPEAL (2 vols.) and Separate Nos. 15, 17, & 73|
|9||04/05/2010 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF. RspDue: 04/06/2010|
|10||04/05/2010 E-FILED MOTION|
|11||04/06/2010 Response Objecting to extension of time|
|12||04/06/2010 EFILED RESPONSE|
|13||04/06/2010 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (ext. for Appellant's brief). Granted: 04/22/2010|
|14||04/22/2010 APPELLANT BRIEF (e-filed)|
|15||04/22/2010 E-FILED BRIEF (ATB)|
|16||04/22/2010 APPELLANT APPENDIX (e-filed) PDF|
|17||04/22/2010 E-FILED APPENDIX (ATA)|
|18||04/23/2010 Received $25 e-filing surcharge for ATB (Receipt #19461).|
|19||05/04/2010 Received 7 copies of ATB from Central Duplicating.|
|20||05/04/2010 Received 6 copies of ATA from Central Duplicating.|
|21||05/05/2010 APPELLEE BRIEF|
|22||05/05/2010 APPELLEE APPENDIX|
|23||05/05/2010 DISK - aeb (CD-ROM)|
|24||05/13/2010 Table of Contents for AEA|
|25||05/18/2010 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|26||06/28/2010 APPEARANCES: Tom P. Slorby/Elizabeth L. Pendlay, State's Attny. and Michel W. Stefonowicz|
|27||06/28/2010 ARGUED: Slorby/Pendlay|
|28||06/28/2010 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|29||07/13/2010 NO ACTION TAKEN (Motion to Dismiss appeal)|
|30||07/13/2010 DISPOSITION: OR/JUD VACATED, REMANDED|
|31||07/13/2010 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Maring, Mary Muehlen|
|32||07/14/2010 Judgment Sent to Parties|
|34||08/12/2010 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|