Opinion
No. 20130356.
2014-05-9
STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Daimeon Ernest SIMMONS, Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from the District Court of Ward County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Richard L. Hagar, Judge.Daniel A. Gulya, Assistant State's Attorney, Ward County State's Attorney's Office, Minot, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.Thomas J. Gunderson, North Dakota Public Defenders' Office, Minot, N.D., for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.
Appeal from the District Court of Ward County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Richard L. Hagar, Judge.
Daniel A. Gulya, Assistant State's Attorney, Ward County State's Attorney's Office, Minot, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief. Thomas J. Gunderson, North Dakota Public Defenders' Office, Minot, N.D., for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.
PER CURIAM.
[¶ 1] Daimeon Simmons appeals from a district court order revoking his probation, arguing the revocation of his probation violated the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7), concluding probation revocation is not a stage of the criminal prosecution entitling an individual to double jeopardy relief. See State v. Wetzel, 2011 ND 218, ¶ 8, 806 N.W.2d 193 (“[P]robation revocation is not a stage of the criminal prosecution; rather, it is a continuation of the original prosecution to determine whether the defendant violated a condition of his existing probation and not to convict and punish the defendant for a new criminal offense.”). [¶ 2] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., DALE V. SANDSTROM, DANIEL J. CROTHERS, and LISA FAIR MCEVERS, JJ, and H. PATRICK WEIR, S.J., concur.