Opinion
No. 20150245.
02-18-2016
In the Interest of G.L.D. Brian D. Grosinger, Assistant State's Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee v. G.L.D., Respondent and Appellant.
Brian D. Grosinger, Assistant State's Attorney, petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief. Gregory I. Runge, for respondent and appellant; submitted on brief.
Brian D. Grosinger, Assistant State's Attorney, petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief.
Gregory I. Runge, for respondent and appellant; submitted on brief.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
[¶ 1] G.L.D. appeals from a district court order denying his request for discharge from commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. He argues the State failed to prove he has a congenital or acquired condition manifested by a sexual disorder and could commit further acts of sexually predatory conduct. He also argues the district court should not have quashed the witness subpoenas. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4), concluding the district court did not err in finding G.L.D. remains a sexually dangerous individual and did not abuse its discretion when it quashed the subpoenas.
[¶ 2] GERALD W. VANDEWALLE, C.J. DALE V. SANDSTROM, DANIEL J. CROTHERS, LISA FAIR McEVERS, and CAROL RONNING KAPSNER, JJ., concur.