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 case involves the Defendant appealing numerous convictions stemming from a domestic dispute. The appeal specifically challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting these convictions.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions.
• Appellee: The State does not contest the reversal of the conviction for criminal damage to property but has not provided further arguments regarding the sufficiency of evidence for the remaining convictions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for false imprisonment, two counts of interference with communications, assault on a household member, and battery of a household member.
• Whether the conviction for criminal damage to property should be reversed.

Disposition

• The conviction for criminal damage to property is reversed.
• The convictions for false imprisonment, two counts of interference with communications, assault on a household member, and battery of a household member are affirmed.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (Cynthia A. Fry, J., and Linda M. Vanzi, J., concurring):
  The court decided to reverse the conviction for criminal damage to property based on the precedent set in State v. Powels, agreeing with the State's position not to contest the reversal. For the remaining convictions, the Defendant did not provide new law, facts, or arguments beyond what was already considered in the court's initial analysis. Consequently, the court relied on its previous proposal regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, as outlined in the first calendar notice, to affirm the convictions for false imprisonment, two counts of interference with communications, assault on a household member, and battery of a household member. The case is remanded to the district court for the vacating of the conviction for criminal damage to property and for resentencing of the Defendant.