Opinion
No. 20140051.
2014-09-23
In the Interest of Raymond VOISINE, Respondent. Jonathan Byers, Special Assistant State's Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee v. Raymond J. Voisine, Respondent and Appellant.
Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Sonna M. Anderson, Judge.Jonathan R. Byers, Special Assistant Attorney General, Bismarck, ND, for petitioner and appellee.Kent M. Morrow, Bismarck, N.D., for respondent and appellant.
Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Sonna M. Anderson, Judge.
Jonathan R. Byers, Special Assistant Attorney General, Bismarck, ND, for petitioner and appellee. Kent M. Morrow, Bismarck, N.D., for respondent and appellant.
PER CURIAM.
[¶ 1] Raymond Voisine appeals from a district court order denying his request for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. Voisine's actions leading to his civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual have resulted in proceedings leading to five previous appeals to this Court. See Voisine v. State, 2008 ND 91, ¶ 17, 748 N.W.2d 429 (reversing and vacating revocation of probation in postconviction proceeding); Matter of Voisine, 2010 ND 17, ¶¶ 1, 15, 777 N.W.2d 908 (reversing commitment as sexually dangerous individual and remanding for further proceedings); In Interest of Voisine, 2010 ND 241, ¶ 1, 795 N.W.2d 38 (summarily affirming commitment as sexually dangerous individual); Interest of Voisine, 2012 ND 250, ¶ 1, 823 N.W.2d 786 (summarily affirming denial of request for discharge from commitment as sexually dangerous offender); Voisine v. State, 2014 ND 98, ¶ 2 (summarily affirming denial of petition for postconviction relief).
[¶ 2] In this appeal, Voisine argues the district court erred in denying his request for discharge because there was not clear and convincing evidence that he was likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct and that he has serious difficulty controlling his behavior. We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). [¶ 3]