State v. Gai

                                                                               FILED
                                                                       IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                    CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                         DECEMBER 28, 2023
                                                                     STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA




                  IN THE SUPREME COURT
                  STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                

State of North Dakota,                                  Plaintiff and Appellee
      v.
Abraham Bior Gai,                                    Defendant and Appellant



                                No. 20230231

Appeal from the District Court of Richland County, Southeast Judicial District,
the Honorable Bradley A. Cruff, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Megan E. Kummer, State’s Attorney, Wahpeton, ND, for plaintiff and appellee;
submitted on brief.

Samuel A. Gereszek, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted
on brief.
                                State v. Gai
                                No. 20230231

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Abraham Bior Gai appeals from a criminal judgment revoking probation
and imposing a new sentence of two years imprisonment.

[¶2] On appeal, Gai conceded the district court’s findings of fact that he
violated the terms of his probation were not clearly erroneous. He argues the
court acted unreasonably by revoking his probation and resentencing him.
After a review of the record, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion
in revoking Gai’s probation. See State v. Hatzenbuehler, 

, 

 (noting we review the district court decision on whether to revoke
probation under the abuse-of-discretion standard).

[¶3] To the extent Gai challenges the length of his sentence as an abuse of
discretion, we do not review a sentence imposed within the statutory range.
See State v. Gates, 

 (N.D. 1995) (our review of a sentence
imposed after revoking probation is confined to determining whether the
district court acted within statutorily prescribed limits). We summarily affirm
under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

[¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
     Daniel J. Crothers
     Lisa Fair McEvers
     Jerod E. Tufte
     Douglas A. Bahr




                                       1