Title: State v. Franck

State: north-dakota

Issuer: North Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

495 N.W.2d 60 (1993) STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Stella FRANCK, aka John Doe 632, Defendant and Appellant. Cr. No. 920159. Supreme Court of North Dakota. January 22, 1993. Constance L. Cleveland (argued), Assistant State's Atty., Fargo, for plaintiff and appellee. Peter B. Crary, argued on behalf of counsel of record, Richard D. Varriano, Moorhead, MN, for defendant and appellant. MESCHKE, Justice. We remand an appeal of a criminal conviction to the trial court to determine whether there was excusable neglect for a late-filed notice of appeal. Stella Franck was one of 41 people arrested at the abortion clinic in Fargo on November 21, 1991. She was charged with violating NDCC 12.1-10-05 by disobeying a recent injunction that restrained obstruction of the clinic. The court order prohibited going within 100 feet of the clinic, "except that two people may quietly and peacefully picket such facility, so long as said people do not interfere with the operations... or individuals seeking to enter or leave" it. Franck was convicted by a jury on April 16, 1992, and imposition of her sentence was deferred for six months with unsupervised probation conditioned upon no further violations of law. Franck timely moved for a new trial, alleging that the evidence was insufficient and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. On May 8, the trial court denied a new trial. On May 18, 1992, Franck's attorney signed a notice of appeal, but did not file it in the office of the Clerk of County Court until May 19. This notice of appeal was filed too late to give us jurisdiction to review the conviction. Appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case is controlled by NDRAppP 4(b): The identical rule is repeated at NDRCrimP 37(b). Jurisdiction depends on a timely filed notice of appeal. If the notice of appeal is not filed with the clerk of the trial court within ten days from the date of the entry of the judgment or order appealed from, we do not have jurisdiction. State v. Neigum, 369 N.W.2d 375 (N.D.1985). Here, a motion for new trial was timely filed within ten days of the judgment of conviction. In that event, NDRAppP 4(b)(1) allows an appeal "within ten days after the entry of an order denying the motion." Franck's notice of appeal was not filed until the eleventh day after entry of the order denying her motion. Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction of this appeal. Still, there is a safety valve. NDRAppP 4(b)(3) says: After oral argument, Franck submitted a Motion for Extension to File Notice of Appeal and Brief to the Clerk of the Supreme Court. This motion is submitted to the wrong court. We remand this motion to the trial court to determine whether there was excusable neglect in the failure of Franck's counsel to timely file the notice of appeal. See State v. Latendresse, 450 N.W.2d 781 (N.D.1990). If the trial court so determines, we direct that the record be expeditiously returned to this court to consider the merits of Franck's appeal. VANDE WALLE, C.J., and LEVINE, NEUMANN and SANDSTROM, JJ., concur.