### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOT A

2020 ND 237

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v. Joan Leslie Gates, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20200154

Appeal from the District Court of Renville County, Northeast Judicial District, the Honorable Anthony S. Benson , Judge.

DISMISSED

. Opinion of the Court by McEvers , Justice.

Seymour R. Jordan, State’s Attorney, Crosby, ND

, for plaintiff and appellee ; submitted on brief

.
Joan L. Gates, Sherwood, ND , defendant and ap pellant; submitted on brief.1 State v. Gates No. 20200154

McEvers , Justice.

[¶1] Joan Gates appeals from a district court order denying her motion for summary judgment filed in her criminal case

. We conclude Gates’ appellate brief fails to provide us with a reasonable opportunity to address any alleged errors made by the district court

. We dismiss the appeal.

I

[¶2] In 2013, a jury found Gates guilty of misapplication of entrusted property , a class B felony, for her actions while she wa s personal representative of the Estate of Lela Gates. This C ourt summarily affirmed the
conviction. State v. Gates , 2014 ND 99 , 859 N.W.2d 929

. The district court
ordered Gates to pay $93,257.74 in restitution to the successor personal representative o f the Estate. Gates filed an application for post

- conviction relief regarding the restitution order, which was denied by the district court. On appeal, this Court amended the restitution order to $39,150.23 in total
restitution. State v. Gates , 2015 ND 177, ¶ 16, 865 N.W.2d 816.

[¶3] In July 2019, the clerk of district court sent a letter to Gates stating she owed $28,414 in restitution. Gates responded, denying she owed that amount
i n restitution

. In October 2019, Gates sent a let ter to the district court, alleg ing

s he overpaid her restitution and the court owed her money

. She claimed she paid $70,000 toward her restitution

, and the court owes her $30,849.77 because
this Court reduced her restitu tion to $39,150.23. In resp onse, the clerk of court explain e d Gates’ inheritance from Lela Gates’ estate was used to offset Gates’
restitution

. The clerk stated Gate s’ restitution was paid in full, $650 paid by Gates was applied to assessed fines, and no money was owed to her

.
[¶4] In January 2020, Gates moved for summ ary judgment in he r criminal case and Lela Gates’ probate case , arguing the district court owed her $30, 849.77. In the criminal file, t he court denied her motion, concluding summary judgmen t was inappropriate because her criminal case had been2

com pletely adjudicated. Gates appealed only from the court’s order entered in
her criminal case

.

II

[¶5] Gates filed a two

- page , single

- spaced brief claim ing the Renville County district court owes her $30,849.77, plus interest

. Rule 28(b), N.D.R.App.P., governs the conte nt and format of ap pellant’ s briefs

, provid ing :

(b) A ppellant’s Brief. The appellant’ s brief must contain, under appropriate headings and in the order indicated: (1) a table of contents, with pa ragraph references; (2) a table of authorities

— cases (alphabetically arranged), statutes, and other authorities

— with references to the

pa ra g raph s of the brief where they are cited; (3) in an application for the exercise of original jurisdiction, a concise statement of the grounds on which the jurisdiction of the supreme court is invoked, including citations of authorities; (4) a statement of the issues presented for review; (5) a statement of the case briefly indicating the nature of the case, the course of the proceedings, and the disposition below; (6) a st atement of the facts relevant to the issues submitted for review, which identifies facts in dispute and includes appropriate references to the record (see Rule 28(f)); (7) the argument, which must contain: (A) appellant’ s contentions and the reasons for th em, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies; and (B) for each issue, a concise statement of the applicable standard of review (which may appear in the discussion of the issue or under a separate heading place d before the discussion of the issues); and (C) if the appeal is from a judgment ordered under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b), whether the certification was appropriate; and (8) a short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.

[¶6] In State v. Noack , 2007 ND 82, ¶ 9

, 732 N.W.2d 389 , we explained:3

Of the requirements imposed by N.D.R.App.P. 28, three are absolutely imperative for our review. At a minimum, a brief must contain a statement of the issues presented for review; a statement of the facts and, where those fact s are disputed, references to the evidentiary record supporting the appellant’ s statement of the facts; and the appellant’ s legal argument, including the authorities on which the appellant relies. Without these essential elem ents included in the appellant ’ s brief, we decline to address the alleged errors because the case is not properly before us.

[¶7] Gates’ brief contains the items listed in N.D.R.App.P. 28 (b) (1)

- (8) ; however, it fails to adequately explain why the district cou rt erred in denying
her motion

. Her statement of the issues presented for review reargue s issues
involved in the Lela Gates’ probate case from which she has not appealed

. As to the criminal case, Gates’ raises issues already resolved in her first two appeals and raises iss ues not addressed in her motion

. The statement of the
facts include no citation to the record showing how she overpaid her
restitution. Her argument includes the following rhetoric, mostly about the probate case, but no legal argument:

Why make ND laws the the ND Renville County Court doesn ’ t follow?? This entire criminal case should have been presented in Renville County probate. The inheritors could never agree on anything and some inheritors felt that there was more money than there ever was. Appellant ’ s Moth er Lela Gates was land poor and she lived on very little monthly cash. But her lease land payments did keep her solvent. Most of the Appellant ’ s siblings spend more than they earn. Bob and Lela Gates spent a life time accumulating land only to have it s old to greedy relatives. Appellant is requesting the court allow her the inheritance stated in the Lela Gates will (pg 17, appendix).

In addition, Gates’ citations to legal authority have no relevance to any legal argument on how the district court erred.

[¶8] As a self

- represented litigant, Gates “ is not granted leniency solely because of [her] status as such.” Noack , 2007 ND 82, ¶ 8. We are not ferrets

, obligated to engage in unassisted searches of the record for evidence to support a party ’ s position , and we will not consider arguments not adequately4

articulated, supported

, and briefed. Id. See also Nelson v. Nelson , 2020 ND 130, ¶ 12, 944 N.W.2d 335

. “ The parties have the pri mary duty to bring to the court’ s attention the proper rules of law applicable to a case.” Noack , at ¶ 8.

[¶9] On the basis of Gates’ appellate brief , we are unable to meaningfully
review t he alleged errors made by the district court

. We therefore exercise our authority to dismiss the appeal under N.D.R.App.P. 3(a)(2).

III

[¶10] W e deny the Sta te’s request for damages, costs, and attorney’s fees under N.D.R.App.P. 38. Gates’ appeal is dismissed.

[¶11] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte