[¶ 1] M.B. entered a conditional plea of guilty to continuous sexual abuse of a child. M.B. appealed from the criminal judgment and the order denying his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm because M.B. has not demonstrated N.D.C.C. § 27-20-34(8) violates the equal protection clauses of the North Dakota or federal constitutions.
I.
[¶ 2] In May 2008, M.B. was charged with continuous sexual abuse of a child, occurring between January 30, 1988, and January 30, 1998. M.B. was born on September 11, 1979, thus the alleged abuse occurred when he was between the ages of eight and eighteen. The State asserted the district court had jurisdiction due to N.D.C.C. § 27-20-34(8), which reads:
A person at least twenty years of age who committed an offense while a child and was not adjudicated for the offense in juvenile court may be prosecuted in district court as an adult, unless the state intentionally delayed the prosecution to avoid juvenile court jurisdiction. The district court has original and exclusive jurisdiction for the prosecution under this subsection.
M.B. was twenty-eight years old when the State filed its complaint. M.B. does not argue, and there is no evidence on the record, that the State intentionally delayed prosecuting M.B. to avoid juvenile court jurisdiction.
[¶ 3] M.B. moved to dismiss the charge for lack of jurisdiction, arguing N.D.C.C. § 27-20-34(8) violates the equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions. The district court denied M.B.’s motion. M.B. then entered a conditional plea of guilty to the charge. See N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2) (permitting a conditional plea of guilty). The district court *665sentenced M.B. to three years in prison, with all three years suspended during a three-year period of supervised probation.
II.
[¶ 4] M.B. argues N.D.C.C. § 27-20-34(8) violates the equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions. He argues the statute unconstitutionally discriminates against him on the basis of age because his case was heard in district court rather than juvenile court, although some of the acts upon which the charge was based took place while he was a juvenile. This Court has previously discussed its standard of review when a party claims a statute is unconstitutional:
Whether a statute is unconstitutional is a question of law, and a statute will be upheld unless its challenger demonstrates the statute is unconstitutional. Best Products Co., Inc. v. Spaeth, 461 N.W.2d 91, 96 (N.D.1990). A legislative act is presumed to be constitutional, and any doubt about its constitutionality must, where possible, be resolved in favor of its validity. Southern Valley Grain Dealers Ass’n v. Board of County Comm’rs, 257 N.W.2d 425, 434 (N.D.1977). A party raising a constitutional challenge must bring up the “heavy artillery” or forego the attack entirely. Effertz v. North Dakota Workers’ Comp. Bureau, 481 N.W.2d 218, 223 (N.D.1992).
Bolinske v. Jaeger, 2008 ND 180, ¶ 17, 756 N.W.2d 336. We have examined the issue raised by M.B. and conclude his argument is without merit. We decline to engage in further discussion that could serve as precedent for future cases in which a party claims unconstitutional age discrimination.
III.
[¶ 5] We affirm the district court’s judgment.
[¶ 6] MARY MUEHLEN MARING, DANIEL J. CROTHERS, and DALE V. SANDSTROM, JJ., concur.