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 charged with multiple counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor under age thirteen, including three counts of first degree criminal sexual penetration, eight counts of second degree criminal sexual contact, and one count of third degree criminal sexual contact. Following a plea agreement, the Defendant was ultimately sentenced on nine counts of second degree criminal sexual contact of a minor. The appeal concerns the correction of the Defendant's sentence to reflect the appropriate parole term and to correct an erroneous statutory reference.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the amended criminal indictment, which alleges a third degree felony, should result in a sentence reflecting a conviction of a third degree felony. The Defendant also claimed that the trial counsel’s ineffectiveness resulted in a guilty plea that was not entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and that the district court erred in accepting his plea agreement due to his demonstrated misgivings and the charges not being supported by sufficient evidence.
• Appellee (State): Argued that the district court had the authority to sentence the Defendant for nine counts of second degree criminal sexual contact of a minor, and that the Defendant should be resentenced to a parole period between five and twenty years in accordance with the law in effect at the time the crimes were committed.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's sentence should be corrected to reflect the appropriate parole term and to correct an erroneous statutory reference.
• Whether the Defendant's guilty plea was entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and whether the district court erred in accepting the plea agreement.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the Defendant’s convictions for nine counts of second degree criminal sexual contact of a minor.
• The Court remanded for clarification and correction of the Defendant’s sentence to correct the erroneous statutory reference and to adjust the parole period in accordance with the law in effect at the time the crimes were committed.

Reasons

• JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that despite the Defendant's opposition, the district court was justified in accepting his plea to nine counts of second degree criminal sexual contact of a minor because it was a "lesser or related offense" to the charged first degree criminal sexual penetration. The Court also addressed the Defendant's claim regarding the parole period, agreeing that the sentence should reflect a parole period of five to twenty years, as per the law at the time the crimes were committed. Regarding the ineffective assistance claim, the Court affirmed the district court’s acceptance of the Defendant’s plea agreement and the convictions, as the Defendant did not present new arguments beyond those already considered in the proposed summary disposition.