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, a youthful offender, entered a guilty plea for second degree murder, shooting at a dwelling or occupied building, conspiracy to commit shooting at a dwelling or occupied building, and tampering with evidence. The appeal concerns the district court's handling of the Defendant's case, particularly regarding the requirement to obtain a report from the Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) and issues of double jeopardy related to the convictions.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court abused its discretion by failing to request and obtain a report from CYFD as mandated by law, which was necessary for determining the Defendant's amenability to treatment as a juvenile. Additionally, the Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence regarding his amenability to treatment and raised a double jeopardy issue concerning his convictions for second degree murder and shooting at a dwelling or occupied building.
• Appellee (State): Initially unclear on whether the required CYFD report was obtained but conceded that if it was not, reversal and remand would be appropriate. The State also conceded to the double jeopardy violation but suggested an alternative remedy to the one proposed by the Defendant.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by not requesting and obtaining a CYFD report for the Defendant, a youthful offender, as required by law.
• Whether the Defendant's convictions for second degree murder and shooting at a dwelling violate double jeopardy protections.

Disposition

• The appeal resulted in the affirmation of the district court's decision regarding the sufficiency of evidence on the Defendant's amenability to treatment and the alleged failure to obtain a CYFD report.
• The conviction for shooting at a dwelling or occupied building was vacated due to double jeopardy concerns, and the case was remanded for entry of an amended judgment and sentence.

Reasons

• WECHSLER, Judge (with RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge and LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring):
  The Court initially proposed to reverse and remand based on the apparent failure to obtain a CYFD report and a double jeopardy violation (para 1). However, after further review and obtaining a supplemental record, the Court found that the report on amenability met the statutory requirements, thus rejecting the Defendant's challenge regarding the CYFD report (paras 3-5).
  Regarding the sufficiency of evidence on the Defendant's amenability to treatment, the Court deemed the issue abandoned by the Defendant as he did not contest the proposed disposition of that issue (para 2).
  On the double jeopardy issue, the Court agreed with the Defendant that his convictions for second degree murder and shooting at a dwelling violated double jeopardy protections. The Court vacated the conviction for shooting at a dwelling or occupied building and remanded for entry of an amended judgment and sentence, rejecting the State's suggestion for an alternative remedy (paras 6-7).