Opinion
No. 20220266
01-05-2023
STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Joyanta BANERJEE, Defendant and Appellant
Kimberlee J. Hegvik and Nicholas S. Samuelson, Assistant State's Attorneys, Fargo, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief. Joyanta Banerjee, Fargo, ND, self-represented, defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.
Kimberlee J. Hegvik and Nicholas S. Samuelson, Assistant State's Attorneys, Fargo, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.
Joyanta Banerjee, Fargo, ND, self-represented, defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.
Per Curiam. [¶1] Joyanta Banerjee appeals from two orders denying his motions for a new trial.
[¶2] Under N.D.R.App.P. 28(b), an appellant's brief must contain: a table of contents; a statement regarding jurisdiction; a statement of the issues presented for review; a statement of the case indicating the nature of the case; a statement of the facts relevant to the issues, and a legally supported argument regarding the appellant's issues. We discussed the importance of these requirements in State v. Noack , 2007 ND 82, ¶¶ 7-8, 732 N.W.2d 389. Without the content required by N.D.R.App.P. 28(b), we will decline to review the appellant's alleged errors.
[¶3] Although Banerjee's brief contains headings for a statement of facts, a statement of the case, and law and argument, the lack of content following the headings prevents us from providing meaningful or effective appellate review. Therefore, under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8) we summarily affirm the district court's orders denying Banerjee's motions for a new trial.
[¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Gerald W. VandeWalle
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte