State v. Carpenter (N.D. 2011). · Go Syfert
State v. Carpenter (N.D. 2011). Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: State v. Roller
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Roller (2×) also: Cited "see"
unknown court · 2024 · confidence medium
Lyon, 2019 ND 21, ¶ 8 (“Section 12.1-32-09(1), N.D.C.C., allows the district court to extend an offender’s sentence if the court finds the offender is a habitual offender[.]”); State v. Booth, 2015 ND 59, ¶ 5 , 861 N.W.2d 160 (stating a court may sentence a convicted offender “to an extended sentence as a habitual offender” under section 12.1-32-09(1)(c)); Carpenter, 2011 ND 20, ¶¶ 17, 21, 23 (referring to the “habitual offender sentence enhancement”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Roller (2×) also: Cited "see"
unknown court · 2024 · confidence medium
Lyon, 2019 ND 21, ¶ 8 (“Section 12.1-32-09(1), N.D.C.C., allows the district court to extend an offender’s sentence if the court finds the offender is a habitual offender[.]”); State v. Booth, 2015 ND 59, ¶ 5 , 861 N.W.2d 160 (stating a court may sentence a convicted offender “to an extended sentence as a habitual offender” under section 12.1-32-09(1)(c)); Carpenter, 2011 ND 20, ¶¶ 17, 21, 23 (referring to the “habitual offender sentence enhancement”).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Jasmann
N.D. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. O’Toole, 2009 ND 174, ¶ 8 , 773 N.W.2d 201 . [¶ 14] “This Court’s review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a guilty verdict by a jury is highly deferential.” State v. Carpenter, 2011 ND 20, ¶ 5 , 793 N.W.2d 765 .
discussed Cited "see" State v. Brossart
N.D. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Carpenter, 2011 ND 20, ¶ 10 , 793 N.W.2d 765 (arguments not adequately articulated, supported, and briefed will not be considered). [¶ 30] We conclude the estray chapter applies under the facts of this case.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Ratliff v. State
N.D. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Carpenter, 2011 ND 20, ¶ 18 , 793 N.W.2d 765 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State
v.
Carpenter
20100085.
North Dakota Supreme Court.
Feb 8, 2011.
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published

Filed 2/8/11 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2011 ND 14

Interest of J.W., a Child

Kendra Cassavant, Petitioner and Appellee

v.

J.W., a child; A.W., Mother;

C.W., Father; Vicky Altringer,

Guardian Ad Litem; Executive

Director, ND Department of

Human Services, Respondents

C.W., Father, and A.W., Mother, Appellants

No. 20100376

Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable David E. Reich, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Brian D. Grosinger (argued), Jackson J. Lofgren (on brief), and Gabrielle J. Goter (appeared), Assistant State’s Attorneys, Morton County Courthouse, 210 2nd Avenue NW, Mandan, ND 58554, for petitioner and appellee.

Carey A. Goetz (argued), 316 N. 5th Street, P.O. Box 1695, Bismarck, ND 58502-1695, for respondent and appellant C.W.

Kevin McCabe (argued), Office of the Public Defender, 135 Sims, Suite 221, Dickinson, ND 58601, for respondent and appellant A.W.

Interest of J.W., a child

No. 20100376

Per Curiam.

[¶1] A.W. (mother) and C.W. (father) appeal from a juvenile court order terminating their parental rights to J.W., a minor child.  A judicial referee made findings of fact, and those findings were adopted by the district judge in its order.  The court found J.W. was a deprived child with the conditions and causes of deprivation likely to continue, and J.W. would probably suffer physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm.  The court also found A.W. and C.W. abandoned J.W. by failing to communicate with her or provide for the care and support of J.W. as required by law.  A.W. argues the court erred in finding the causes and conditions of deprivation were likely to continue, and termination of her parental rights was not necessary.  C.W. argues the court erred in terminating his rights based on his relationship with A.W., and there was no evidence deprivation would likely continue because of him.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring