Interest of M.W.

20100047 In the Interest of M.W., a child
--------------------------------
Divide County Sheriff's Department,
by Lauren Throntveit, Petitioner and Appellee
v.
M.W., a child, T.F, mother,
and C.W., father, Respondents and Appellants

Appeal from: Juvenile Court, Northwest Judicial District, Divide County
Judge Gerald H. Rustad
Nature of Action: Juvenile Law (Criminal)
Counsel:
Appellant: Tom P. Slorby
Appellee: Elizabeth Ledgerwood Pendlay , State's Attorney
Term: 06/2010   Argument: 06/28/2010  10:45am
ND cite: 2010 ND 135
NW cite: 785 N.W.2d 211

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format

Issues: 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 Add Docket 20100047 RSS

Docket entries:
102/09/2010 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 02/05/2010
202/09/2010 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 02/05/2010
302/10/2010 Notice of Mot. to Dismiss Appeal on Grounds of Mootness, Motion and Brief in Support.. RspDue: 02/22/2010
402/22/2010 Response to Not. of Mot. to Dismiss Appeal on Grounds of Mootness Filed.(e-filed)
502/26/2010 TRANSCRIPT DATED AUGUST 10, 2009, & C.O.S.
602/26/2010 DISK-TRA (8/10/09) e-mailed
703/03/2010 Motion to Dismiss deferred until consideration of merits of the appeal
803/03/2010 RECORD ON APPEAL (2 vols.) and Separate Nos. 15, 17, & 73
904/05/2010 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF. RspDue: 04/06/2010
1004/05/2010 E-FILED MOTION
1104/06/2010 Response Objecting to extension of time
1204/06/2010 EFILED RESPONSE
1304/06/2010 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (ext. for Appellant's brief). Granted: 04/22/2010
1404/22/2010 APPELLANT BRIEF (e-filed)
1504/22/2010 E-FILED BRIEF (ATB)
1604/22/2010 APPELLANT APPENDIX (e-filed) PDF
1704/22/2010 E-FILED APPENDIX (ATA)
1804/23/2010 Received $25 e-filing surcharge for ATB (Receipt #19461).
1905/04/2010 Received 7 copies of ATB from Central Duplicating.
2005/04/2010 Received 6 copies of ATA from Central Duplicating.
2105/05/2010 APPELLEE BRIEF
2205/05/2010 APPELLEE APPENDIX
2305/05/2010 DISK - aeb (CD-ROM)
2405/13/2010 Table of Contents for AEA
2505/18/2010 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT
2606/28/2010 APPEARANCES: Tom P. Slorby/Elizabeth L. Pendlay, State's Attny. and Michel W. Stefonowicz
2706/28/2010 ARGUED: Slorby/Pendlay
2806/28/2010 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
2907/13/2010 NO ACTION TAKEN (Motion to Dismiss appeal)
3007/13/2010 DISPOSITION: OR/JUD VACATED, REMANDED
3107/13/2010 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Maring, Mary Muehlen
3207/14/2010 Judgment Sent to Parties
3308/09/2010 MANDATE
3408/12/2010 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 10/22/2014