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 10:45am|
|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|
|11||04/06/2010||Response Objecting to extension of time|
|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.|
|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|
|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|