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 on probation following a plea agreement that did not exclude the possibility of a habitual enhancement to his sentence, given his admission to a prior conviction. The State reserved the right to seek a habitual enhancement if the Defendant violated probation, which occurred, leading to the revocation of his probation by the district court.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that his underlying sentence was illegal because it did not include a habitual enhancement as mandated by law, despite his plea agreement not ruling out such an enhancement (para 3).
• Appellee: The State, through its agreement to defer seeking a habitual enhancement pending probation compliance, exercised its broad charging discretion. The State argued for the legality of the original sentence under the plea agreement's terms (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in not imposing a habitual enhancement at the time of the original sentencing, considering the plea agreement's terms (para 3).
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation (para 4).

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement to include additional issues was denied (para 2).
• The appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the revocation of probation was deemed abandoned, and the district court's decision was affirmed (para 4).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Jane B. Yohalem, J. Miles Hanisee, and Zachary A. Ives, concluded that the Defendant's new issue regarding the legality of his sentence without a habitual enhancement was not viable. This conclusion was based on the plea agreement's terms and the State's reserved right to seek habitual enhancement upon probation violation, aligning with the State's broad charging discretion. The Court also found the Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for probation revocation abandoned, as he did not contest the proposed affirmance of this issue in his memorandum in opposition (paras 2-4).