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 embezzlement of a motor vehicle. He argued that his action of borrowing the vehicle for a longer period than agreed with the owner did not constitute embezzlement since he eventually returned the vehicle (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence of embezzlement because he returned the vehicle, suggesting that borrowing it for a longer period than agreed did not amount to embezzlement (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's action of keeping another's vehicle for a longer period than agreed constitutes embezzlement (para 2).
• Whether the Defendant was denied due process when an amended Judgment and Sentence required him to pay $4,000 without notice and an opportunity to be heard (para 3).

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied, and the Defendant’s conviction was affirmed (paras 1, 3-4).

Reasons

• SUTIN, Judge (with MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, and JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge concurring):
  The Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for embezzlement. It was noted that the jury was not required to find an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle, and the jury's role in resolving conflicts in testimony and determining credibility was emphasized (para 2).
  Regarding the motion to amend, the Court found the Defendant's due process claim non-viable because he did not demonstrate how the issue was raised below or why it should be allowed for the first time on appeal. Additionally, there was no indication that the Defendant had requested a hearing regarding his restitution from the district court (para 3).