STATE v. SILK (2020)

[¶1] Stefan Silk appeals from a district court order revoking his probation and amended criminal judgment. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).

I

[¶2] In July 2019, Silk pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine, a class C felony. The district court sentenced Silk to 360 days of imprisonment, with all but eight days suspended for 360 days, and supervised probation. In October 2019, the State filed a petition to revoke Silk's probation.

[¶3] The State claimed Silk violated the terms of his probation by failing to report to the probation office, his whereabouts were unknown at the time the petition was filed, and he was convicted of driving under suspension. After a hearing, the court found Silk violated the terms of his probation. The court revoked Silk's probation and sentenced him to serve eighteen months of imprisonment with credit for time served and recommended placement at Tompkins Rehabilitation and Corrections Unit, if deemed appropriate.

[¶4] On appeal, Silk argues the district court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and committed obvious error by exceeding its resentencing authority. Upon reviewing the record in this case and our prior holdings in State v. Gonzalez, 2011 ND 143, 799 N.W.2d 402, State v. Dubois, 2019 ND 284, 936 N.W.2d 380, and State v. Lyon, 2020 ND 34, 938 N.W.2d 908, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Silk's probation and did not obviously err in its resentencing. We summarily affirm the order revoking probation and amended criminal judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).

Jensen, Chief Justice.

[¶5] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Lisa Fair McEvers Daniel J. Crothers Gerald W. VandeWalle Jerod E. Tufte