Title: State v. Farrell

State: north-dakota

Issuer: North Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

214 N.W.2d 503 (1974) STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Dennis Charles FARRELL, Defendant/Appellant. Hugo LOEB, Petitioner, v. Robert LANDON, Warden of the State Penitentiary; and the State of North Dakota, Respondents. Joseph John MAHRER, Petitioner, v. Robert LANDON, Warden of the State Penitentiary; and the State of North Dakota, Respondents. Cr. Nos. 457, 462, 463. Supreme Court of North Dakota. December 4, 1973. Rehearings Denied February 1, 1974. *504 C. J. Schauss, Mandan, for defendant/appellant, Farrell. Lester J. Schirado, State's Atty., Mandan, for plaintiff/appellee, State. John E. Adams, Asst. Atty. Gen., Bismarck, and Lester J. Schirado, State's Atty., and Richard L. Schnell, Asst. State's Atty., Mandan, for respondents, Landon and State. Bair & Brown, Mandan, and Lundberg & Nodland, Bismarck, for petitioners, Loeb and Mahrer. TEIGEN, Judge. In these three cases penitentiary sentences were imposed upon the defendant, Farrell, and upon the petitioners, Loeb and Mahrer, for delivery and delivery and sale of a controlled substance in violation of Chapter 19-03.1, N.D.C.C., known as the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. The defendant Farrell has appealed from the judgment and sentence, raising as the only issue the legality of the sentence. The petitioners Loeb and Mahrer, who were defendants in the criminal actions referred to above, raise the same issue by habeas corpus proceedings, which proceedings were consolidated for the purpose of hearing. By agreement, the trial court has certified the following four questions to this court, pursuant to Chapter 32-24, N. D.C.C.: The trial court answered the first three questions in the negative, and its answer to question 4 is that the violation constitutes a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for such term as the court may determine, up to the maximum provided by statute. It determined that the construction of the law is in doubt and vital, and of great moment to these cases. All proceedings were thereupon halted until the questions certified to this court could be determined. The answers to the issues raised by the certified questions will also answer the issues raised by the defendant Farrell on his appeal. Thus this opinion will settle all three cases. The defendant Farrell and the petitioners Loeb and Mahrer contend that the violations do not constitute felonies punishable *505 by imprisonment in the penitentiary, but are misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment in the county jail. The problem arises because the penalty sections of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, cited in the certified questions, do not state the place of imprisonment and do not state the classification of the offense, that is, whether it is a felony or a misdemeanor. They read as follows: Except for possession of marijuana, the above sections prescribe only the duration of the permissible punishment. We were faced with a similar question in Davis v. Riedman, 114 N.W.2d 881 (N.D.1962). That case involved the crime of assignation as a first offense. The penalty statute provided for imprisonment for not more than one year but did not state whether the crime was a misdemeanor or a felony, nor did it state the place of imprisonment. In that case we held: In the body of the opinion, at 884, we said: In State v. Newton, 247 Iowa 550, 74 N.W.2d 687 (1956), the Supreme Court of Iowa, having adopted the same rule adopted by this court in Davis, determined that the rule is not applicable when the quantum of punishment bears no natural or reasonable relation to punishment by confinement in a county jail, and held that under Iowa's rape statute, which fixed the punishment for any number of years to life imprisonment without designating the place of imprisonment or the classification of the offense, the defendant was not entitled to have the offense deemed a misdemeanor and was properly sentenced to a term of five years in the men's reformatory. We agree with the Iowa court. The proponents of the claims that the offenses are misdemeanors have cited cases from several jurisdictions which support our result in Davis, and we adhere to our decision in that case. However, we are confronted here with a statute which provides quantum of punishment which bears no natural or reasonable relation to punishment by imprisonment in a county jail. The various parts of the statute under consideration carry penalties ranging from maximums of five years to life imprisonment. The classifications of offenses warranting such periods of imprisonment are obviously of the felony class. Section 12-01-03, N.D.C.C., provides: Clearly, confinement in a county jail for periods up to five years or to life imprisonment has no natural or reasonable relation to accomplishing the object of punishment, nor does it promote justice. Furthermore, such a sentence bears no natural or reasonable relation to confinement in an institution considered to be less penal, such as a county jail. We also note that Sections 19-03.1-24 and 19-03.1-25, N.D.C.C., which prohibit violations of controls imposed upon those persons legally registered to handle controlled substances or to dispense them on prescription, classifies a violation of such statutes as a "felony and upon conviction may be imprisoned for not more than one year, fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both." [Emphasis added.] These sections classify the offenses named therein as felonies but do not state the place of imprisonment. It is also noted that the exception contained in subsection 3 of Section 19-03.1-23, N.D.C.C., provides that a person who violates this subsection regarding possession of marijuana "shall be guilty of a crime and upon conviction may be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned in the county jail or in the state penitentiary for not more than one year or both." [Emphasis added.] It is indicated by the quantum of punishment allowable that these crimes are considered less serious than those set forth in the subsections being considered here. Yet the Legislature saw fit to declare some of *507 the violations as felonies, and one, without declaring it to be a felony, as being punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary. Certainly the Legislature could not have considered that those crimes for which a longer punishment was provided should be considered lesser and classified as misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment in the county jail. For the reasons set forth in this opinion we determine the answers to Certified Questions 1, 2 and 3 to be "Yes". Having answered questions 1, 2 and 3 in the affirmative, and finding that the sentences in all the convictions in issue here were made to the penitentiary, and because question 4 goes beyond the issues involved in the proceedings before the trial court in that it includes subdivisions c and d of subsection 1, Section 19-03.1-23, N.D.C.C., and the possession of marijuana under the exception contained in subsection 3 of Section 19-03.1-23, N.D.C.C., we decline to answer it as the answer would be merely advisory, and not vital or of great moment in these cases. The statute providing for certification of questions of law to this court does not contemplate the giving of advisory opinions. City of Grand Forks v. Grand Forks County, 139 N.W.2d 242 (N. D.1965); Backman v. Guy, 126 N.W.2d 910 (N.D.1964). For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment and sentence in State v. Farrell. ERICKSTAD, C. J., and VOGEL, KNUDSON and PAULSON, JJ., concur. Also, for the reasons set forth in this opinion, the cases of Loeb v. Landon and Mahrer v. Landon are remanded for further proceedings according to law.[*] ERICKSTAD, C. J., KNUDSON and PAULSON, JJ., and BEEDE, District Judge, concur. [*] VOGEL, J., deeming himself disqualified did not participate; WILLIAM M. BEEDE, Judge of the Fifth Judicial District sitting in his place.