State v. Youngbird
- State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
Shalee Youngbird, Defendant and Appellant
- Case Type
- CRIMINAL APPEAL : THEFT
- Appeal From
Case No. 2019-CR-01817
North Central Judicial District, Ward County
Richard L. Hagar
Parties' Statement of Issues
I. Whether the District Court Erred in Ordering Restitution because it had lost Jurisdiction to Order Restitution.
II. Whether the District Court Erred in Ordering Restitution and/or Erred in the Amount of Restitution Ordered because the State Failed to make an Adequate Showing to Support an Order for Restitution and/or Failed to make an Adequate Showing to Support the Amount of Restitution Ordered.
III. Whether the District Court Erred in Ordering Restitution without Holding a Restitution Hearing.
I. Did the District Court lose jurisdiction to order restitution when the State moved the District Court for an order to amend the judgment to include restitution within the nonstatutory 90 day time limit, but the District Court entered an order granting the same beyond 90 days?
II. Are the victims entitled to restitution?
III. Was Youngbird entitled to a Restitution Hearing?
Shalee Youngbird appeals from the orders amending judgment to include restitution and an amended criminal judgment.
In February 2020, Youngbird pled guilty to the charges of theft of property, reckless endangerment, and duty in accident involving death or personal injury. Youngbird was sentenced to five years, three years suspended on the condition of three years’ supervised probation, on each count, to be served concurrently. In April 2020, the State filed a motion to amend criminal judgement, requesting the court amend the criminal judgement to include restitution in the amount of $56,917.46. Youngbird objected to the State’s motion, neither party requested a hearing on the motion, and the court ruled on the basis of the party’s filings.
On appeal, Youngbird argues the district court erred in ordering restitution because the motion was not timely and the State had failed to meet its burden in showing a causal relationship as required by N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-08.
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||06/18/2020||NOTICE OF APPEAL : 06/18/2020|
|2||06/18/2020||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT : 06/19/2020|
|3||06/19/2020||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|4||06/19/2020||Notice served on Eric P. Baumann; Christopher W. Nelson, & R.R.|
|5||06/24/2020||AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL|
|6||06/25/2020||NOT. OF FILING AMENDED NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|7||06/25/2020||Notice served on Eric P. Baumann; Christopher W. Nelson, & R.R.|
|8||07/10/2020||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 2019|
|9||07/10/2020||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 2019|
|10||07/10/2020||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED OCTOBER 15, 2019|
|11||07/10/2020||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED OCTOBER 24, 2019|
|12||07/10/2020||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED DECEMBER 31, 2019|
|13||07/10/2020||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED JANUARY 3, 2020|
|14||07/10/2020||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2020|
|15||07/10/2020||Certificate of Service for Transcript|
|16||07/20/2020||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED JULY 17, 2020 (ENTRY NOS. 1-62, 64-103)|
|17||08/10/2020||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|18||08/11/2020||ACTION BY CLERK - Granted : 09/18/2020|
|20||09/16/2020||Oral Argument Request by Appellant|
|22||09/17/2020||Rec'd C.O.S for ATB and ATA on Appellant from Eric P. Baumann|
|23||09/18/2020||Rec'd 5 copies of ATB and 4 copies of ATA back from CD|
|26||10/16/2020||Rec'd non-substantive corrections to AEB & AEA|
|27||10/19/2020||Rec'd additional corrections to AEA|
|28||10/20/2020||Rec'd 5 copies of AEB & 4 copies of AEA from CSD|
|29||10/22/2020||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|