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 convicted of multiple charges related to a vehicular incident, including homicide by vehicle (reckless driving), driving while intoxicated (DWI), homicide by vehicle (DWI), knowingly leaving the scene of an accident (death or great bodily harm), and failure to give immediate notice of an accident.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Indicated that it does not oppose the appellate court's proposal to remand to the district court to vacate the Defendant's convictions for homicide by vehicle (reckless driving) and DWI.
• Defendant-Appellant: Requested that the appellate court vacate both his convictions for homicide by vehicle (reckless driving) and homicide by vehicle (DWI) and remand for entry of a general verdict of homicide by vehicle without specifying the theory under which he was convicted.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant’s convictions for homicide by vehicle (reckless driving) and DWI violated his right to be free from double jeopardy.
• Whether the court should vacate both convictions for homicide by vehicle (reckless driving) and homicide by vehicle (DWI) and remand for entry of a general verdict of homicide by vehicle without specifying the theory under which he was convicted.

Disposition

• The appellate court reversed the Defendant’s convictions for homicide by vehicle (reckless driving) and DWI and remanded so that those convictions may be vacated.
• The appellate court affirmed the remainder of the Defendant’s convictions.

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring):
  The appellate court proposed to reverse and vacate the Defendant's convictions for homicide by vehicle (reckless driving) and DWI due to a violation of the Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy. The State did not oppose this proposal. The Defendant requested that both his convictions for homicide by vehicle (reckless driving) and homicide by vehicle (DWI) be vacated and remanded for a general verdict of homicide by vehicle. The court declined this request, citing precedent indicating the Legislature's intent for the homicide by vehicle (DWI) conviction to stand as the more serious offense compared to homicide by vehicle (reckless driving). Therefore, the court decided to remand so that the district court can vacate the Defendant's conviction for homicide by vehicle (reckless driving), agreeing with the Defendant's proposal to vacate his DWI conviction. The decision to affirm the remainder of the Defendant's convictions was based on the reasons set forth in the first, second, and third notices of proposed summary disposition.