Per Curiam.
[¶ 1] Brian Kelly Martineau appealed from a district court order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence, under Rule 35(a), N.D.R.Crim.P. Martineau argues this Court should overrule its prior decisions regarding resentencing, following the revocation of probation, because they violate the federal and state constitution and are contrary to legislative history. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). State v. Lindgren, 483 N.W.2d 777, 779 (N.D. 1992) (stating section 12.1-32-07(5) [now section 12.1-32-07(6)], N.D.C.C., authorizes trial courts to resentence a defendant who violates a condition of probation to any sentence that was originally available); see also City of Bismarck v. Uhden, 513 N.W.2d 373, 376 (N.D. 1994) (recognizing that "[w]here courts of this State have construed statute and such construction is supported by the long acquiescence on the part of the legislative assembly and by the failure of the assembly to amend the law, it will be presumed that such interpretation of the statute is in accordance with legislative intent").
[¶ 2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Carol Ronning Kapsner Mary Muehlen Maring William A. Neumann Dale V. Sandstrom