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 and sentenced for battery upon a peace officer. He appealed, arguing he was denied counsel pretrial, received ineffective assistance of counsel due to lack of preparedness, was denied counsel at sentencing, and that the district court erred in denying his motion for a change of venue.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his conviction should be reversed due to structural error from being denied counsel pretrial and ineffective assistance of counsel. Also contended he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because of the denial of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at sentencing, and that the district court erred in denying his motion for a change of venue.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The State's arguments are not explicitly detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant was denied counsel pretrial, amounting to structural error or ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
• Whether the Defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at sentencing.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion for a change of venue.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the Defendant's conviction.
• The court vacated the Defendant's sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing.
• The court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of the Defendant's motion for a change of venue.

Reasons

• ATTREP, Judge; concurred by JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge and MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge: The court concluded that even if the Defendant was erroneously denied counsel during the pretrial period, he failed to support his contention that such error was structural or that it otherwise merits reversal absent a showing of prejudice (paras 3-5). The court also rejected the Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim due to lack of support in the record (para 10). Regarding the sentencing, the court agreed with the parties that the Defendant was entitled to a new sentencing hearing because he was denied counsel, expressing dismay at how the district court proceeded (para 12). Lastly, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Defendant's motion for a change of venue, as the Defendant did not demonstrate actual prejudice from the denial (paras 13-14).