Filed 2/12/20 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2020 ND 31

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Randy Scott Jensen, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20190321

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central

Judicial District, the Honorable John A. Thelen, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Opinion of the Court by Tufte, Justice.

Carmell F. Mattison, Assistant State’s Attorney, Grand Forks, N.D., for

plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, N.D., for defendant and appellant.
1

State v. Jensen

No. 20190321

Tufte, Justice.

[¶1] Randy Scott Jensen appeals from a district court order denying his 

motion to correct an illegal sentence. Because Jensen was not given seven days 

to respond to the State’s answer brief under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(2), we reverse the 

district court order and remand for an opportunity to respond.

I

[¶2] Jensen was released on parole from the state penitentiary in December 

2017. About ten days later, he was arrested and charged in this case for drug 

offenses and unlawful use of license plates. He remained incarcerated until his 

August 2018 court trial. At trial, the district court found Jensen guilty on all 

counts. In October 2018, he was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment with 

credit for 94 days served between July 1, 2018, and October 2, 2018.

[¶3] In August 2019, Jensen moved to correct his sentence under 

N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a)(1), arguing he was owed credit for time spent incarcerated

between his December 2017 arrest and October 2018 sentencing. The State 

filed an answer brief, arguing Jensen was not entitled to additional credit 

because he was held on the parole violation and other charges. The next day, 

the district court denied Jensen’s motion.

II

[¶4] On appeal, Jensen argues the district court abused its discretion by 

denying his motion without giving him an opportunity to respond under 

N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(2).

We have said that “[t]he district court’s decision to amend a 

judgment is subject to sound judgment and will not be reversed on 

appeal unless there is an abuse of discretion.” State v. Peterson, 

2016 ND 192, ¶ 8, 886 N.W.2d 71. A court abuses its discretion if 

it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, if 

its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading 

to a reasoned determination, or if it misinterprets or misapplies 
2

the law. Id.; see also State v. Moos, 2008 ND 228, ¶ 30, 758 N.W.2d 

674.

State v. Myers, 2017 ND 265, ¶ 6, 903 N.W.2d 520.

[¶5] Rule 3.2(a)(2), N.D.R.Ct., provides:

Briefs. Upon serving and filing a motion, the moving party must 

serve and file a brief and other supporting papers and the opposing 

party must have 14 days after service of a brief within which to 

serve and file an answer brief and other supporting papers. The 

moving party may serve and file a reply brief within seven days 

after service of the answer brief. Upon the filing of briefs, or upon 

expiration of the time for filing, the motion is considered submitted 

to the court unless counsel for any party requests oral argument 

on the motion.

(Emphasis added.)

[¶6] Here, the district court denied Jensen’s motion before seven days had 

passed after service of the answer brief. Because the time to reply had not 

expired, the motion was not yet submitted to the court under N.D.R.Ct. 

3.2(a)(2). We conclude the district court misapplied the law in denying Jensen 

an opportunity to respond under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(2). See State v. Vogt, 2019 

ND 236, ¶¶ 9–10, 933 N.W.2d 916 (district court’s dismissal of petitioner’s 

postconviction relief application on its own motion was inappropriate because 

he was not provided notice and an opportunity to be heard pursuant to 

N.D.R.Ct. 3.2). The district court’s misapplication of Rule 3.2 was an abuse of

discretion. Because the district court abused its discretion, we reverse the 

order denying Jensen’s motion and remand for an opportunity to respond 

consistent with N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(2). 

III

[¶7] We have considered the remaining arguments and conclude they are 

either unnecessary to our decision or do not affect the outcome of the appeal. 

We reverse the district court order denying Jensen’s motion to correct an illegal 
3

sentence and remand for an opportunity to respond consistent with N.D.R.Ct. 

3.2(a)(2). 

[¶8] Jerod E. Tufte

 Gerald W. VandeWalle

 Daniel J. Crothers

 Lisa Fair McEvers

 Jon J. Jensen, C.J.