Court Opinion

ID: 9798234
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:45:57.077516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:30.653797
License: Public Domain

CROTHERS, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
[¶ 10] I agree with the majority that the district court erred summarily affirming the appeal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 37(1). However, I respectfully dissent from that part of the decision reversing the district court.
[¶ 11] This Court long has embraced the rule that we will affirm if the district court is right for the wrong reason. Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, 2010 ND 169, ¶ 40, 788 N.W.2d 312 (“[W]e will not set aside a correct result merely because the district court’s reasoning is incorrect if the result is the same under the correct law and reasoning.”) (quoting Sanders v. Gravel Products, Inc., 2008 ND 161, ¶ 9, 755 N.W.2d 826). We also eschew labels used by parties and courts, and examine the substance of district court motions and pleadings. In re N.C.C., 2000 ND 129, ¶ 11, 612 N.W.2d 561 (“We are not bound by the district court’s or a party’s label, *833and may look to the substance of the motion to determine its proper classification. ‘Improper labels are not binding on appeal.’ Cumber v. Cumber, 326 N.W.2d 194, 195-96 (N.D.1982) (holding an interlocutory determination was erroneously labeled a ‘judgment’); see also City of Grand Forks v. Henderson, 297 N.W.2d 450, 453 (N.D.1980) (concluding objections to attorney fees and the related proceedings were the equivalent of a N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) motion).”).
[¶ 12] The transcript of proceedings shows the district court judge believed the matter should be dismissed. The city attorney led the court down the Rule 37(1) trail by arguing for summary affirmance. The district court made an oral ruling, stating:
“The District Court orders, noting the non-compliance with the Order, the nonappearance, that the appeal be dismissed. So ordered by the Court.
“In the alternative, the Court issues a summary affirmance of the Municipal Court ruling pursuant to Rule 37 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure noting the non-appearance in regards to this matter.”
The district court directed the city attorney to prepare a written order, which it did and which the district court signed. Contrary to the district court’s oral ruling, that order states only that “the Court summarily affirms the judgment of the Fargo Municipal Court.”
[¶ 13] I acknowledge that the written order supersedes the district court’s oral ruling. Wetzel v. Schlenvogt, 2005 ND 190, ¶ 26, 705 N.W.2d 836 (“Whenever there is a discrepancy between a trial court’s oral and written statements, the written statement controls.”). However, because the district court originally ordered dismissal and summary affirmance, I believe our “right for the wrong reason” analysis should be used. When used, two significant considerations must be added to the discussion. Those additional considerations are: (1) N.D.R.Crim.P. 37(a)(2) grants the district court express authority to exercise any remedy, “including dismissing the appeal,” for a party’s failure to take any step other than filing the notice of appeal; and (2) the district court’s earlier order explicitly requiring White to personally attend all court proceedings.
[¶ 14] Criminal Rule 37(a)(2) provides:
“An appellant’s failure to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal, but is grounds only for the district court to act as it considers appropriate, including dismissing the appeal.”
Id. The court’s scheduling order stated, “YOU MUST PERSONALLY APPEAR IN COURT AT THE FOLLOWING TIMES,” and listed six proceedings, including the dispositional conference. White signed the scheduling order acknowledging its terms and his receipt of it.
[¶ 15] The majority questions the expediency of the dispositional conference. But they do not declare it a nullity. Nor do they hold that the district court could not require White’s personal appearance at the conference. White undisputedly failed to personally appear at the conference, contrary to the court’s valid order. Dismissal of White’s appeal should be affirmed because that remedy is expressly authorized by Criminal Rule 37 and also is likely available through the district court’s inherent authority to control its docket. See Gullickson v. Kline, 2004 ND 76, ¶ 15, 678 N.W.2d 138 (“We are mindful of the necessity of the trial court having complete control over the proceedings before it.”) (quoting Ward v. Shipp, 340 N.W.2d 14, 18 (N.D.1983)). Therefore, I would affirm be*834cause the district court had authority and grounds to dismiss White’s appeal.
[¶ 16] Daniel J. Crothers