Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. George Anthony ORTIZ, Defendant and Appellant
[¶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 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).
Per Curiam.
[¶5] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20230126
Decided: October 26, 2023
Court: Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)