State v Bunker

Bunker appealed his sentence arguing the district court failed to consider relevant factors. The panel affirmed holding the record demonstrated all the issues that Bunker wanted considered were in the pre-sentence report, were raised by family members in their testimony or were covered in the argument by Bunker’s attorney.

In the Interests of D.B. and L.B. (B.C. v State)

B.C. appealed the termination of her parental rights. The panel affirmed. It held that B.C.’s testimony that she had not been drug free outside of drug treatment, used drugs after the children were removed, had no job or appropriate housing and thus would not be able to care for the children provided a sufficient basis to terminate and evidence the children were thriving in their new settings was sufficient to demonstrate termination was in their best interests.

State v Potter

Potter appealed his sentence arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The panel affirmed. It held that even if Potter’s criminal history was incorrectly scored too high, the rationale of the district court, that Potter took sexual advantage of a vulnerable youth in a continuing relationship, was independent of the score and would have justified the same sentence even if the score were correct.

State v Nuzman

Nuzman appealed his sentence arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The panel affirmed. It held the record demonstrated that trial counsel raised Nuzman’s mental health issues at every opportunity, moved to have Nuzman transferred to mental health court, obtained release to treatment and argued for probation and thus her performance was not deficient.