AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was charged with multiple counts of fraud by worthless check in a 2009 information. This followed a 2007 plea agreement where the Defendant had been required to pay restitution for some charges that he contends are the same as those in the 2009 information.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State was collaterally estopped from prosecuting some of the charges contained in the 2009 information because he had already been required to pay restitution for those charges as part of a 2007 plea agreement.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the checks charged in the 2009 information were not the same as those referred to in the Defendant's 2007 judgment and sentence, providing evidence of twenty-one checks to support the distinction between the two sets of charges.

Legal Issues

• Whether the State was collaterally estopped from prosecuting the Defendant for charges contained in the 2009 information based on the restitution paid as part of a 2007 plea agreement.
• Whether the checks involved in the 2009 information were different from those involved in the 2007 judgment and sentence.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss multiple counts of fraud by worthless check.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Cynthia A. Fry with Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, found that the checks charged in the 2009 information were indeed different from those referred to in the Defendant's 2007 judgment and sentence. This conclusion was supported by the State's evidence of twenty-one checks that accounted for both the charges the Defendant pleaded guilty to in 2007 and the additional counts for which he was required to pay restitution. The Court applied a de novo standard of review for the constitutional question of double jeopardy but deferred to the trial court's factual determinations under a substantial evidence standard. Despite a noted discrepancy in the total restitution amount, the Court determined that this did not establish an overlap between the charges in the 2007 judgment and the 2009 information, thus affirming the district court's decision.