Case Name: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Pamela SEIDEL, Defendant and Appellant
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Decision Date: 2018-09-25
Citations: 917 N.W.2d 514
Docket Number: No. 20180035
Parties: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Pamela SEIDEL, Defendant and Appellant
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 917
Pages: 514–514

Head Matter:
STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Pamela SEIDEL, Defendant and Appellant
No. 20180035
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Filed September 25, 2018
Allen M. Koppy, State's Attorney, Mandan, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.
Steven Balaban, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellant.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
[¶ 1] Pamela Marie Seidel appeals from a criminal judgment sentencing her to the maximum period of incarceration (30 days) and 360 days of unsupervised probation. As a condition of probation, Seidel was ordered to participate in North Dakota's 24/7 Sobriety Program ("24/7 Program") after her plea of guilty to driving under the influence. On appeal, Seidel argues that because she had already served the maximum period of incarceration for a class B misdemeanor, it was improper to place her on probation and order her participation in the 24/7 Program. Although not argued to the district court, Seidel asserts her placement in the 24/7 Program unconstitutionally restricts her right to travel under both the United States Constitution and the North Dakota Constitution. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). See State v. McClean , 1998 ND 21, ¶ 8, 575 N.W.2d 200 ("The Legislature did not restrict a trial court from imposing both a maximum probation sentence and a maximum imprisonment sentence for misdemeanors."); see also State v. Kieper, 2008 ND 65, ¶ 16, 747 N.W.2d 497 (constitutional issues will not be considered for the first time on appeal).
[¶ 2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Jon J. Jensen
Lisa Fair McEvers
Daniel J. Crothers
Jerod E. Tufte