Court Opinion

ID: 9893229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-26 15:09:12.998966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:47.839562
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                         IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                      CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                           OCTOBER 26, 2023
                                                                       STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT
                  STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                2023 ND 201

State of North Dakota,                                  Plaintiff and Appellee
      v.
George Anthony Ortiz,                               Defendant and Appellant

                                No. 20230126

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District,
the Honorable Susan L. Bailey, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Ryan J. Younggren, Katie M. Nechiporenko and Nicholas S. Samuelson.
Assistant State’s Attorneys, Fargo, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted
on brief.

Laura C. Ringsak, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted on
brief.
                                 State v. Ortiz
                                 No. 20230126

Per Curiam.

[¶1] George Ortiz appeals a district court’s judgment sentencing him to 55
years of incarceration. Ortiz pleaded guilty to murder with a deadly weapon, a
class AA felony. Ortiz argues the court abused its discretion by improperly
weighing the statutory sentencing factors, and factors two, three and ten
weighed in his favor. We affirm.

[¶2] A district court retains “broad discretion in sentencing, and our review
of a sentence is generally limited ‘to whether the court acted within the
statutorily prescribed sentencing limits or substantially relied on an
impermissible factor.’” State v. Thomas, 2020 ND 30, ¶ 17, 938 N.W.2d 897. “A
district court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable,
unconscionable, or capricious manner, or if its decision is not the product of a
rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination, or if it
misinterprets or misapplies the law.” Id. at ¶ 8.

[¶3] Sentencing factors “are not controlling of the court’s discretion and are
not an exclusive list of all the court may consider in sentencing.” State v. Lyon,
2020 ND 34, ¶ 7, 938 N.W.2d 908. The district court does not need to “explicitly
reference” the factors. State v. Gonzalez, 2011 ND 143, ¶ 8, 799 N.W.2d 402; see
also State v. Halton, 535 N.W.2d 734, 739 n. 1 (N.D. 1995) (no explicit reference
to the factors is needed); State v. Steinbach, 1998 ND 18, ¶ 24, 575 N.W.2d 193
(the sentencing factors are not an exclusive list).

[¶4] The district court must sentence within the statutorily prescribed limits,
which in this case is four years for the minimum mandatory and life without
parole for the maximum mandatory. N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-01(1); N.D.C.C. § 12.1-
32-02.1(2)(a). The district court did not abuse its discretion because it acted

                                        1
within the statutory limits and did not rely on any impermissible factors. We
summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

[¶5] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
     Daniel J. Crothers
     Lisa Fair McEvers
     Jerod E. Tufte
     Douglas A. Bahr

                                     2