Court Opinion

ID: 9880794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-28 17:07:08.078304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:15.723440
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                      IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                   CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                       SEPTEMBER 28, 2023
                                                                    STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                 IN THE SUPREME COURT
                 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                  2023 ND 175

State of North Dakota,                               Plaintiff and Appellee
     v.
Alexis Patricia-Nichole Hanson,                   Defendant and Appellant

                                  No. 20230053

Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial
District, the Honorable Douglas A. Bahr, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Chase R. Lingle, Assistant State’s Attorney, Mandan, ND, for plaintiff and
appellee; submitted on brief.

Justin M. Balzer, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted on
brief.
                               State v. Hanson
                                No. 20230053

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Alexis Hanson appeals from a district court judgment entered after a
jury convicted her of child abuse and child neglect. Hanson argues the evidence
was insufficient to find her guilty of both charges and the evidence created
reasonable doubt. Hanson also argues the court erred in sentencing her to one
year of incarceration. We affirm.

[¶2] “In reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the
defendant ‘bears the burden of showing the evidence reveals no reasonable
inference of guilt when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict.’” State
v. Rai, 2019 ND 71, ¶ 13, 924 N.W.2d 410 (citing State v. Truelove, 2017 ND
283, ¶ 7, 904 N.W.2d 342). When viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict, we conclude sufficient evidence exists that could allow
a jury to convict on both charges.

[¶3] When determining if a court abused its discretion in sentencing, we look
to whether the district court acted within the statutorily prescribed sentencing
limits or relied on impermissible factors. State v. Thomas, 2020 ND 30, ¶ 17,
938 N.W.2d 897 (citing State v. Clark, 2012 ND 135, ¶ 18, 818 N.W.2d 739).
The court here acted within the statutory limits by imposing the mandatory
minimum sentence under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-22(1) and (4). We summarily affirm
under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

[¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
     Daniel J. Crothers
     Lisa Fair McEvers
     Jerod E. Tufte
     Stacy J. Louser, D.J.

[¶5] The Honorable Stacy J. Louser, D.J., sitting in place of Bahr, J.,
disqualified.

                                        1