Court Opinion

ID: 9942949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 15:06:42.109932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:25.511522
License: Public Domain

20230285
                                                                                FILED
                                                                        IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                     CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                          FEBRUARY 22, 2024
                                                                      STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                 IN THE SUPREME COURT
                 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                2024 ND 33

State of North Dakota,                                Plaintiff and Appellee
     v.
Rozalyn Lee Vondal Rinde,                          Defendant and Appellant

                               No. 20230285

Appeal from the District Court of Walsh County, Northeast Judicial District,
the Honorable Barbara L. Whelan, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion of the Court by Bahr, Justice.

Jarrod R. Steele, Assistant State’s Attorney, Grafton, ND, for plaintiff and
appellee.

Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellant.
                                State v. Rinde
                                No. 20230285

Bahr, Justice.

[¶1] Rozalyn Rinde appeals from a criminal judgment entered after the
district court revoked her probation and resentenced her. Rinde argues the
court imposed an illegal sentence. We affirm.

                                       I

[¶2] After an April 7, 2021 probation search of her residence, the State
charged Rinde in June 2021 with five counts, including one count of unlawful
possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), a class A
misdemeanor, and one count of endangerment of a child or vulnerable adult, a
class C felony.

[¶3] On September 15, 2021, Rinde entered into a plea agreement and
pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a controlled substance and to
endangerment of a child or vulnerable adult; the State dismissed the
remaining three counts. On the same date, the district court sentenced Rinde
on the two counts concurrently to serve 360 days with the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, with all but 63 days suspended for two years
of supervised probation and credit for 63 days previously served. The clerk of
court filed a criminal judgment on September 23, 2021.

[¶4] On November 5, 2021, the State petitioned the district court to revoke
Rinde’s supervised probation. After a November 3, 2022 revocation hearing,
the court revoked her probation and entered an amended criminal judgment.
On May 19, 2023, the State filed a second petition to revoke Rinde’s probation.
At the July 28, 2023 probation hearing, Rinde admitted to the allegations and
the court resentenced her concurrently to 360 days on the misdemeanor count
and to five years on the felony count, with credit for 124 days of time served on
both counts. On July 31, 2023, the clerk of court entered a criminal judgment
on the resentencing.

                                       1
                                        II

[¶5] Rinde argues the district court imposed an illegal sentence. She argues
the court lacked authority to impose the sentence under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-
07(6). She further argues the sentence violates the prohibition on ex post facto
laws.

[¶6] Our standard for reviewing a criminal sentence is well established:

             A trial court has broad discretion in fixing a criminal
      sentence. Within this discretion also lies a trial court’s authority to
      decide whether a sentence should run concurrently or
      consecutively. We have repeatedly held we have no power to review
      the discretion of the sentencing court in fixing a term of
      imprisonment within the range authorized by statute. Rather, our
      review of a criminal sentence is generally confined to whether the
      trial court acted within the statutorily prescribed sentencing limits
      or substantially relied on an impermissible factor. Thus, we will
      vacate a trial court’s sentencing decision only if the trial court
      acted outside the limits prescribed by statute or substantially
      relied on an impermissible factor in determining the severity of the
      sentence.

State v. Gonzalez, 2024 ND 4, ¶ 6 (quoting State v. Gonzalez, 2011 ND 143, ¶ 6,
799 N.W.2d 402 (cleaned up)).

                                        A

[¶7] “Section 12.1-32-07(6), N.D.C.C., governs a district court’s ability to
modify a defendant’s sentence upon revocation of probation.” Gonzalez, 2024
ND 4, ¶ 6 (quoting State v. Larsen, 2023 ND 144, ¶ 6, 994 N.W.2d 194); see also
State v. McGinnis, 2022 ND 46, ¶ 11, 971 N.W.2d 380. This section provides:

      The court, upon notice to the probationer and with good cause, may
      modify or enlarge the conditions of probation at any time before
      the expiration or termination of the period for which the probation
      remains conditional. If the defendant violates a condition of
      probation at any time before the expiration or termination of the
      period, the court may continue the defendant on the existing
      probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions,

                                        2
      or may revoke the probation and impose any other sentence that
      was available under section 12.1-32-02 or 12.1-32-09 at the time of
      initial sentencing or deferment.

N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6).

[¶8] The legislature amended N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6) effective August 1,
2021. We recently explained:

      This section was amended, effective August 1, 2021, to remove the
      last sentence, which stated: “In the case of suspended execution of
      sentence, the court may revoke the probation and cause the
      defendant to suffer the penalty of the sentence previously imposed
      upon the defendant.” 2021 N.D. Sess. Laws ch. 111, § 1; N.D.C.C.
      § 12.1-32-07(6) (2019). Under the previous version, the statute
      “unambiguously restrain[ed] a district court’s authority in
      probation revocation cases to imposition of the sentence initially
      imposed but suspended.” McGinnis, 2022 ND 46, ¶ 12, 971 N.W.2d
      380 (quoting Dubois v. State, 2021 ND 153, ¶ 23, 963 N.W.2d 543).
      In McGinnis, we clarified, “our statutory interpretation decision in
      Dubois v. State did not change the law as of the date of the decision,
      but declared what section 12.1-32-07(6) meant at all times before
      it was amended effective August 1, 2021.” McGinnis, at ¶ 14.

Larsen, 2023 ND 144, ¶ 6. Therefore, before August 1, 2021, N.D.C.C. § 12.1-
32-07(6) “limited a court’s ability to resentence a defendant in the case of a
suspended execution of a sentence to only the sentence previously imposed, but
suspended.” Larsen, at ¶ 6.

[¶9] Effective August 1, 2021, the legislature removed this narrow limitation
for language imposing a suspended sentence, leaving the district court with
the ability to “impose any other sentence that was available . . . at the time of
initial sentencing or deferment.” N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6). In Larsen, we
specifically concluded the August 2021 amendment to N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6)
was not retroactive. 2023 ND 144, ¶ 11; see also Gonzalez, 2024 ND 4, ¶ 9.

                                        3
                                        B

[¶10] On the basis of our decisions in Dubois, 2021 ND 153; McGinnis, 2022
ND 46; and Larsen, 2023 ND 144, Rinde argues the maximum penalty allowed
by law at her July 2023 revocation and resentencing was a 360-day term of
imprisonment. She contends because revocation is tied to the date her original
criminal offenses were committed, the “pre-amendment” version of N.D.C.C. §
12.1-32-07(6) controls the revocation. She argues altering her original sentence
to anything more severe violates the pre-amendment statute and the district
court imposed an illegal sentence by sentencing her to five years in prison
rather than 360 days. The State responds the court did not impose an illegal
sentence because N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6), as amended on August 1, 2021,
allows the court to impose any sentence available at the time of the initial
sentencing.

[¶11] Our prior cases have stated what version of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6)
applies is determined by the date of the original convictions and sentencing,
not the date of the offense. In Larsen, the defendant’s criminal convictions and
sentencing occurred before the August 2021 amendment of the statute, while
his revocation and resentencing occurred after the amendment. 2023 ND 144,
¶ 13. We held that “[b]ecause the resentencing upon revocation is punishment
for the original offenses, the version of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6) in effect at the
time of Larsen’s original convictions and sentencing must be applied at the
revocation and resentencing.” Larsen, at ¶ 17 (emphasis added). We therefore
reversed the district court’s resentencing that did not apply the limit existing
in the pre-amendment version of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6). Larsen, at ¶ 18.

[¶12] Similarly, in Gonzalez, the defendant’s conviction and revocation
occurred before the August 2021 amendment of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6), but
his resentencing occurred after the amendment following the district court’s
grant of post-conviction relief. 2024 ND 4, ¶ 9. As in Larsen, we held the court’s
discretion was limited by our interpretation of the pre-amendment version of
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6). Gonzalez, at ¶ 10. We reversed, concluding
“Gonzalez’s sentences were illegal under application of the pre-amended
version of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6) because the sentences were greater than

                                        4
the originally imposed, but suspended, sentences.” Gonzalez, at ¶ 10; see also
McGinnis, 2022 ND 46 (applying the pre-amendment version of N.D.C.C. §
12.1-32-07(6) when the defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced in 2017);
Dubois, 2021 ND 153 (applying the pre-amendment version of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-
32-07(6) when the defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced in August
2017).

[¶13] In this case, Rinde entered into a plea agreement on September 15, 2021,
and Rinde’s original conviction and sentencing occurred on September 15,
2021. Section 12.1-32-07(6), N.D.C.C., as amended August 1, 2021, was in
effect at the time. The district court properly advised Rinde at her sentencing
hearing on September 15, 2021 that the maximum possible punishment for the
C felony child endangerment count included the potential of a five-year
sentence. The court also advised her of the potential consequences of a
probation violation under the statute as it existed at that time. The original
criminal judgment was subsequently entered on September 23, 2021. Unlike
in Larsen and Gonzalez, Rinde’s criminal convictions and sentencing occurred
after the August 2021 amendment of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6). Section 12.1-
32-07(6), N.D.C.C., as amended August 1, 2021, was the law in effect at the
time of her conviction and sentencing. Therefore, the court was not limited by
the pre-amendment version of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6) when the court revoked
Rinde’s probation and resentenced her in July 2023. We conclude the court did
not impose an illegal sentence in resentencing Rinde concurrently to 360 days
on the misdemeanor count and to five years on the felony count, with credit for
124 days of time served on both counts.

                                       C

[¶14] Rinde argues the district court’s application of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6),
as amended on August 1, 2021, to her judgment of conviction and resentencing
resulted in an “ex post facto application.” See U.S. Const. art. 1, § 10; N.D.
Const. art. I, § 18. Rinde argues retroactively increasing her original sentence
from a maximum of 360 days to five years violated the prohibition on ex post
facto laws. Rinde provides no meaningful authority or analysis to support her
position.

                                       5
[¶15] We have held the August 2021 amendment to the statute is not
retroactive. Larsen, 2023 ND 144, ¶ 11; Gonzalez, 2024 ND 4, ¶ 9. Moreover,
the 2021 amendment did not increase the maximum possible punishment for
the count of C felony child endangerment. Addressing a similar argument in
Knutson v. Foughty, 2023 ND 20, 985 N.W.2d 695, Justice Tufte in his
concurrence explained the 2021 amendment “simply changed the words” a
district court must use in imposing a suspended sentence:

           Knutson argues his sentence violates the ex post facto
     clauses of the state and federal constitutions because his criminal
     conduct predated the effective date of the 2021 amendment to the
     statute governing suspended sentences. The amendment to the
     statute did not change the maximum sentence the district court
     could impose on Knutson. It simply changed the words the court
     must use to express its intent as to sentencing. Before August
     2021, the maximum sentence was five years in prison, with any
     time not served in custody available to be imposed upon any
     revocation of probation. After August 2021, the same maximum
     sentence was available. The words prescribed to express that
     sentence were altered by the statute. The difference is that a
     sentence stating an amount of suspended time less than the
     maximum allowed by law is no longer binding on a subsequent
     court sentencing after revocation. The amendment’s removal of
     discretion to limit the potential consequences upon revocation of
     probation does not place the law in violation of the ex post facto
     clause, N.D. Const. art. I, § 18. The amendment does not make
     criminal an act that was formerly innocent, aggravate the crime,
     increase the punishment, or relax the evidence required to prove
     the offen[s]e. State v. Jensen, 333 N.W.2d 686, 693-94 (N.D. 1983)
     (quoting definition of ex post facto laws first articulated in Calder
     v. Bull, [3 U.S. 386, 390, 3 Dall. 386, 1 L. Ed. 648] (1798)).

Knutson, at ¶ 19 (Tufte, J., concurring). We agree with this rationale and
conclude Rinde’s argument to the contrary is unavailing.

                                      6
                                     III

[¶16] We have considered the remaining arguments and conclude they are
either unnecessary to our decision or are without merit. The criminal judgment
is affirmed.

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

                                      7