Case Name: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Shane Leigh SIMUNDSON, Defendant and Appellant
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Decision Date: 2019-01-15
Citations: 921 N.W.2d 175
Docket Number: No. 20180223
Parties: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Shane Leigh SIMUNDSON, Defendant and Appellant
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 921
Pages: 175–175

Head Matter:
STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Shane Leigh SIMUNDSON, Defendant and Appellant
No. 20180223
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Filed January 15, 2019
Carmell F. Mattison, Assistant State's Attorney, Grand Forks, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.
Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellant.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
[¶1] Shane L. Simundson appealed from a jury verdict finding him guilty of actual physical control under N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01. Simundson argues that he was parked in an area to which the public had no right of access, and thus there was insufficient evidence to satisfy the elements of N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7), concluding there is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the conviction. See State v. Novak , 338 N.W.2d 637, 639-40 (N.D. 1983) (agreeing with other courts that the prohibition on actual physical control applies anywhere within a state); see also State v. Mayland , 2017 ND 244, 902 N.W.2d 762.
[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
[¶3] We concur only in the result. Our decision here is required by Novak, and Simundson has not asked us to overrule Novak. Novak's rationale was doubtful when decided because it drained all substantive content from "public or private areas to which the public has a right of access for vehicular use."
Mayland has restored some substance to this provision, undermining Novak. In an appropriate case, we would be open to reconsidering Novak.
[¶4] Jerod E. Tufte
Jon J. Jensen