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. Timothy John MCLAUGHLIN, Defendant and Appellant
[¶1] Timothy McLaughlin appeals from a district court's criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of manslaughter and two counts of aggravated reckless driving. The court sentenced McLaughlin to ten years’ imprisonment with all but eight years suspended for a period of two years while on supervised probation on the class B felony count of manslaughter, concurrently to 360 days’ imprisonment on each count of aggravated reckless driving. On appeal, McLaughlin argues the impact of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-09.1(1), which requires him to serve at least eighty-five percent of his sentence, was too harsh and serves as a form of cruel and unusual punishment. McLaughlin provides no legal authority for his argument. A party waives an issue by not providing supporting argument and, without supportive reasoning or citations to relevant authorities, an argument is without merit. State v. Vaagen, 2020 ND 241, ¶ 9, 950 N.W.2d 768. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8).
[¶2] McLaughlin also argues his sentence was impermissible because it was too harsh based on the recommendations in his pre-sentence investigation report. “This Court's review of a sentence is generally confined to whether the district court acted within the statutory sentencing limits or substantially relied on an impermissible factor.” State v. Aune, 2021 ND 7, ¶ 10, 953 N.W.2d 601. The sentencing judge is allowed the widest range of discretion. Id. The district court's sentence was within the statutory range of a class B felony. See N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-01(3). McLaughlin does not point to, nor does the record show, the court substantially relied upon an impermissible factor when sentencing McLaughlin. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
Per Curiam.
[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Daniel S. El-Dweek, D.J.[¶4] The Honorable Daniel S. El-Dweek, D.J., sitting in place of Bahr, J., disqualified.
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. 20220252
Decided: March 03, 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)