STATE v. MEDINA (2025)

[¶1] Antonio Medina appeals from an order revoking his probation. He argues the district court failed to make sufficient findings, erred in finding he violated the terms of his probation, and abused its discretion in revoking his probation and failing to consider the statutory sentencing factors in N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-04. We conclude the court made sufficient findings in revoking probation and its findings were not clearly erroneous. See State v. Hatzenbuehler, 2023 ND 192, ¶ 6, 996 N.W.2d 649 (“Findings of fact are adequate if they provide this Court with an understanding of the district court's factual basis used in reaching its determination.”). Further, while the sentencing factors in N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-04 are entitled to consideration, the statutory factors do not control the court's discretion, are not an exclusive list, and need not be explicitly referenced by the court. Id. ¶ 10; see also State v. Gonzalez, 2011 ND 143, ¶ 11, 799 N.W.2d 402 (declining “to vacate a trial court's sentencing decision that is within the statutorily prescribed limits, absent evidence the trial court substantially relied on an impermissible factor”). We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Medina's probation and resentencing him. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7).

Per Curiam.

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