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, following a jury trial, for aggravated battery causing great bodily harm and false imprisonment (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued against the proposed summary disposition by the court, although specific arguments are not detailed in the decision (para 1).
• Appellee: The State, presumably, supported the convictions and the proposed summary disposition, although specific arguments are not detailed in the decision (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's memorandum in opposition presents any facts, authority, or argument that could persuade the Court that the proposed summary disposition was incorrect (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions for aggravated battery (great bodily harm) and false imprisonment (para 3).

Reasons

• KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge (with JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge and MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge concurring): The Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's memorandum in opposition to the proposed summary disposition. The Court referenced the burden on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law, citing Hennessy v. Duryea and State v. Mondragon. The repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement. Based on the lack of persuasive facts, authority, or argument from the Defendant, the Court affirmed the convictions (paras 1-3).