State v. Gonzalez

990257

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Eduardo Miguel Gonzalez a/k/a
Edwardo Gonzalez, Defendant and Appellant

Appeal from:

District Court, East Central Judicial District, Cass County
Judge Georgia Dawson

Nature of Action:

Drugs/Contraband

Counsel:

Appellant:		Johnson, Ramstad & Mottinger, PLLP
Appellee:		Brett M. Shasky , Asst. State's Attorney

Term:

02/2000 Argument: 02/07/2000 01:30pm

ND cite:

2000 ND 32

NW cite:

606 N.W.2d 873

Issues:

Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether the trial court erred in denying Defendant's rule 29 motion because, as a matter of law, there was insufficient evidence on which to find Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance.
II. Whether the trial court committed prejudicial error when it denied Defendant's motion under rule 609, N.D.R.Evid., to exclude evidence of Defendant's prior conviction for possession with intent to deliver cocaine.
III. Whether the trial court erred in sentencing Defendant under section 19-03.1-23, N.D.C.C., when the state was not required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant willfully manufactured, delivered, or possessed a controlled substance with an intent to deliver.

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether the trial court erred in denying the Defendant's rule 29 motion because, as a matter of law, there was insufficient evidence on which to find Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance.
II. Whether the trial court committed prejudicial error when it denied Defendant's motion under Rule 609, N.D.R.Evid., to exclude evidence of Defendant's prior conviction for possession with intent to deliver cocaine.
III. Whether the trial court erred in sentencing Defendant under section 19-03.1-23, N.D.C.C., when the State was not required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant willfully manufactured, delivered, or possessed a controlled substance with an intent to deliver.

Add Docket 990257 RSS

Docket entries:

1	08/17/1999	NOTICE OF APPEAL: 08/09/1999
2	09/03/1999	ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 09/02/1999
3	09/03/1999	RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL: 11/10/1999
4	09/30/1999	Transcripts dated 6-10-99 & 7-21-99
5	10/01/1999	DISKS (tra dated 6-10-99 & 7-21-99) (NOTE: 2 disks)
6	10/19/1999	TRANSCRIPT Commencing August 3, 1999
7	10/20/1999	DISK (Tra dated 8-3 & 8-4-99)
8	10/25/1999	RECORD ON APPEAL (not received were :#4 - felony schedule order, #11 & #21-tapes, #38-steno notes)
9	11/24/1999	APPELLANT BRIEF
10	11/24/1999	APPELLANT APPENDIX
11	11/29/1999	DISK - ATB
12	12/27/1999	MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLEE BRIEF; AFF. OF MR. SHASKY (faxed copies)
13	12/27/1999	ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (MAE). Granted: 01/05/2000
14	12/29/1999	Original Mot. Ext/Time AEB; Aff. of Mr. Shasky
15	01/05/2000	APPELLEE BRIEF
16	02/23/2000	Order/Judgment Mailed to Parties
17	01/06/2000	DISK - AEB
18	02/07/2000	APPEARANCES: Douglas W. Nesheim; Brett M. Shasky
19	02/07/2000	ARGUED: Nesheim; Shasky (Vol. W; page 225)
20	02/22/2000	DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED
21	02/22/2000	UNANIMOUS OPINION: Sandstrom, Dale V.
22	02/23/2000	Order/Judgment Mailed to Parties
23	03/16/2000	MANDATE
24	03/20/2000	RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
25	01/26/2007	EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 01/07/2009