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. Shawn Glenn HELMENSTEIN, Defendant and Appellant
[¶1] Shawn Helmenstein appeals from an amended criminal judgment. In 1999, a jury convicted Helmenstein of murder, a class AA felony in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01(1) and robbery, a class A felony in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-22-01. State v. Helmenstein, 2000 ND 223, ¶ 1, 620 N.W.2d 581 (affirming conviction). The district court sentenced Helmenstein to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole on the murder charge and a consecutive ten-year term of imprisonment on the robbery charge. The court’s judgment did not specify when Helmenstein would be eligible for parole. In 2019, Helmenstein filed a motion to correct the criminal judgment requesting the court clarify when he would be eligible for parole. The court granted his motion, in part, and amended the criminal judgment to include a life expectancy determination and a statement detailing N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-09.1, which requires violent offenders to serve 85% of their sentence before being eligible for parole.
[¶2] On appeal, Helmenstein argues his sentence is an unconstitutional ex post facto application of the law because the district court’s life expectancy determination was calculated according to the mortality table identified by N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 51, which did not become effective until after the date of Helmenstein’s crimes and sentence. He also argues the violent offender sentencing statute, N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-09.1, is unconstitutionally vague and therefore void. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). Helmenstein did not raise these constitutional issues before the district court, and therefore we will not consider them on appeal. See State v. Kieper, 2008 ND 65, ¶ 16, 747 N.W.2d 497 (explaining constitutional issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered). See also State v. Seidel, 2018 ND 215, ¶ 1, 917 N.W.2d 514 (summarily affirming criminal judgment when constitutional argument was not raised before the district court).
Per Curiam.
[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Lisa Fair McEvers Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Jerod E. Tufte
Thank you for your feedback!
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. 20190336
Decided: May 07, 2020
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)