State v. Entzi

Filed July 18, 2006
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2006 ND 150

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Bruce Lynn Entzi, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20060066

Appeal from the District Court of McIntosh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Thomas J. Schneider, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam. Terry W. Elhard, State's Attorney, P.O. Box 99, Ashley, ND 58413-0099, for plaintiff and appellee.
Chad R. McCabe, Vinje Law Firm, 523 N. 4th Street, Ste. 3, Bismarck, ND 58501-4055, for defendant and appellant.

State v. Entzi
No. 20060066

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Bruce Entzi filed a motion to terminate his probation. The district court found the Criminal Judgment and Commitment clearly stated his probationary period was to begin following his period of imprisonment. The district court denied the motion finding Entzi's 5 year probationary period began in January 2004 when his imprisonment was to end. Entzi appealed.

[¶2] Entzi contends a condition of probation was to be completed while he was in prison and therefore he was on probation while in prison. Entzi argues because he was on probation while in prison, his maximum probationary period has expired and his current probationary status should be terminated.

[¶3] In Davis v. State, 2001 ND 85, ¶ 7, 625 N.W.2d 855, this Court held "a trial court may require a defendant to successfully complete a sex offender treatment program while in prison as a prior condition of probation." Further, this Court held where the district court's judgment is unambiguous and makes it clear the defendant is required to complete the treatment program as a prior condition to probation and the defendant does not complete the program before release from prison, the defendant has willfully violated his probation. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8. The Criminal Judgment and Commitment entered against Entzi in the district court clearly required Entzi to complete a sex offender treatment program while in prison as a prior condition of probation and clearly states his probationary period was to begin after his release from prison. Davis v. State, 2001 ND 85, 625 N.W.2d 855, is dispositive of this appeal. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7).

[¶4]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Dale V. Sandstrom
Daniel J. Crothers
Mary Muehlen Maring
Carol Ronning Kapsner