Summary
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Megan Lynn Evanson’s criminal judgments and held that the district court did not err by considering her prior convictions as part of her criminal history at sentencing. Because the prior convictions were not used to enhance her sentence and Evanson failed to object, the court applied obvious-error review and found no obvious error.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court improperly relied on Evanson's prior convictions at sentencing when the record did not establish whether those convictions were counseled.
- Whether the sentencing issue was preserved despite Evanson's failure to object at the sentencing hearing and, if not, whether obvious-error review applied.
- Whether consideration of the prior convictions constituted obvious error or an illegal sentence.
Holdings
- Because Evanson did not object to the introduction of her prior convictions at sentencing, her claim concerned a procedural sentencing error and was subject to obvious-error review rather than ordinary review of an illegal sentence.
- The district court did not err by considering Evanson's prior convictions as part of her criminal history and as one of the discretionary sentencing factors under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-04, because the convictions were not used to enhance her term of incarceration.
- Evanson failed to establish obvious error because she did not show that an error occurred; specifically, she did not establish that the prior convictions were uncounseled.
Key quotations
“Our holding in Thomas clarifies that a defendant need not object or make a motion to preserve the issue of an illegal sentence, meaning one that could not lawfully be imposed in that case under any circumstances.” (¶ 7)
“absent a valid waiver of the right to counsel the resulting [uncounseled] conviction cannot, under art. I, § 12, N.D. Const., be used to enhance a term of imprisonment for a subsequent offense.” (¶ 8)
“Under obvious error review, the burden falls on the appellant to establish obvious error by showing: (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” (¶ 11)
Factual background
Evanson and her husband were involved in the theft of a catalytic converter from a truck and tools from two individuals. In one case she was charged with criminal trespass, criminal mischief, and theft; in the other she was charged with burglary and theft. After pleading guilty, she received a sentence of time served in the first case and an 11-month sentence in the second case, with all but 19 days suspended and supervised probation imposed.
Procedural history
Evanson was charged in two cases arising from theft-related conduct. She initially pleaded not guilty, later pleaded guilty in both cases, and was sentenced on February 21, 2020. She did not object when the State presented her criminal history at sentencing. The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the consolidated appeals and affirmed.