State v. SchmidtCriminal No. 970336

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Mark Richard Schmidt appeals from the trial court's order denying supression of evidence and its criminal judgment of conviction, entered on Rule 11(a)(2), N.D.R.Crim.P., conditional pleas of guilty, to various drug-related charges. We will not reverse the trial court's decision to deny a suppression motion if there is sufficient competent evidence to support the court's findings, and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. State v. Kitchen, 1997 ND 241, ¶12. We hold the trial court's findings of fact are supported by the evidence.

[¶2] We affirm the trial court's order and judgment under Rule 35.1(a)(2), N.D.R.App.P.[¶3]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
William A. Neumann
Mary Muehlen Maring
Herbert L. Meschke
Maurice R. Hunke, D.J.

[¶4] Maurice R. Hunke, D.J., sitting in place of Sandstrom, J., disqualified.