STATE v. TERGESEN (2022)

[¶1] Denver Lee Tergesen appeals from the district court's restitution order and amended criminal judgment, entered following his guilty plea and conviction for theft. On appeal, Tergesen argues the court erred by ordering him to pay $65,739.95 in restitution, contending the court failed to expressly address the State's burden of proof. Tergesen has cited no authority requiring the court to expressly state the burden of proof. We do not address arguments lacking citation to relevant legal authority. See Abdi v. State, 2021 ND 110, ¶ 18, 961 N.W.2d 303 (“[W]ithout supportive reasoning or citations to relevant authorities, an argument is without merit.”). Tergesen also asserts the restitution amount the victim requested was not supported by the evidence. We conclude the court acted within the limits set by statute, made findings meeting the preponderance of the evidence, and therefore did not abuse its discretion in ordering Tergesen to pay restitution. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Per Curiam.

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