North Dakota v. Alberts
Annotate this CaseJames Alberts Jr. appealed an amended order revoking his probation and sentencing him to life in prison with the possibility of parole. In 2008, Alberts pled guilty to murder under N.D.C.C. 12.1-16-01, a class AA felony. The district court sentenced Alberts to 20 years in prison with the balance suspended for five years after he served seven years. The court ordered Alberts to serve the suspended portion on probation subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A, entitled “Conditions for Sentence to Probation Deferred or Suspended Sentence.” In May 2013, the conditions of Alberts’ probation were amended to include that he have no contact with children under the age of 18, except his biological siblings and their biological children and only if another adult approved by his probation officer was present. In October 2013, the State moved to revoke Alberts’ probation. After a hearing, the district court revoked Alberts’ probation, finding he violated the conditions of his probation. The court resentenced Alberts to life in prison, ordering him to serve 11 years with credit for time previously served and with “the remainder suspended for five (5) years from release from DOCR, with his previous Appendix A reimposed.” In December 2017, the State moved to revoke Alberts’ probation, alleging Alberts violated various conditions of his probation including being in possession of a dangerous weapon, failing to report to his probation officer, and committing multiple offenses. Alberts argued the district court’s 2013 order resentencing him did not say the suspended portion of the sentence was subject to probation or state the length of the term of probation, and therefore the court did not impose probation as part of his sentence. He contended he was not on probation and the court had no authority to revoke his probation and resentence him. Finding no abuse of discretion or other reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Alberts' sentence.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.