Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce B. Haskell, Judge.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Crothers, Justice.
This opinion is subject to petition for rehearing. [Go to Documents]
[Download as WordPerfect]
Opinion of the Court by Crothers, Justice.
[¶1] Daniel Humann appeals a district court order requiring sexual offender registration, arguing the district court's findings were insufficient. We affirm.
[¶2] On June 27, 2008, Humann was charged with "possession of certain materials prohibited" by N.D.C.C. § 12.1-27.2-04.1, for possessing on his cell phone images depicting sexual conduct by a minor. On February 3, 2009, Humann pled guilty. He was sentenced to five years incarceration with all but one year suspended for five years following his release. After serving his time at the penitentiary, Humann was released subject to a number of probation conditions.
[¶3] On February 22, 2011, the State petitioned to revoke Humann's probation. The State alleged Humann violated his probation by contacting a minor and possessing naked images of her on his cell phone, contacting another minor and possessing her image on his cell phone, possessing numerous images of naked women on his cell phone, having a Facebook account without permission, possessing alcohol, testing positive for marijuana use and failing to report to law enforcement. At the revocation hearing, Humann admitted all the allegations. The State argued that in addition to revoking Humann's probation, the district court should require Humann to register as a sexual offender. The district court revoked Humann's entire suspended sentence and ordered Humann to register as a sexual offender due to his guilty plea to possession of certain materials prohibited.
[¶4] Humann argues the sexual offender registration statute required the district court to make factual findings regarding mental abnormality and predatory conduct. He argues this case should be remanded because the district court failed to make sufficient findings. The State argues the district court order satisfied the requirements of the sexual offender registration statute. At issue is the proper interpretation and application of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15. Statutory ...