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

• On November 14, 2016, the victim was injured when the defendant threw a half-brick at the car window while the victim was a passenger, leading to the victim's hospitalization due to a facial injury and subsequent infection. The incident stemmed from a contentious relationship between the defendant and the victim, who was dating the defendant's ex-girlfriend (para 3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the two convictions for aggravated battery violated the right to be free from double jeopardy, the evidence was insufficient to support all three convictions, the district court abused its discretion by allowing impeachment with prior felony convictions, failed to instruct on specific intent, improperly refused jury's request for transcripts, prior convictions were not proven sufficiently and were improperly used for sentence enhancement, and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Conceded that one of the aggravated battery convictions should be vacated to avoid a double jeopardy violation but otherwise supported the sufficiency of the evidence and the district court's decisions regarding impeachment, jury instructions, and the use of prior convictions for sentence enhancement (paras 5, 7-34).

Legal Issues

• Whether the two convictions for aggravated battery violate the defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support all three convictions.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in allowing the state to impeach the defendant with evidence of five prior felony convictions.
• Whether the district court's failure to instruct on specific intent constituted fundamental error.
• Whether the district court's refusal to consider the jury's request for transcripts constituted fundamental error.
• Whether the defendant's prior convictions were sufficiently proven and properly used for enhancing his sentence.
• Whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel (para 1).

Disposition

• The court remanded to the district court to vacate one of the aggravated battery convictions due to a violation of the defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy but otherwise affirmed the defendant's convictions (para 2).

Reasons

• YOHALEM, Judge (J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge, and ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge concurring): Agreed that one of the aggravated battery convictions must be vacated to avoid a double jeopardy violation, as the defendant was charged under two alternative theories for a single count of aggravated battery and convicted under both theories. The court found sufficient evidence supporting the defendant's convictions, including the use of a half-brick as a deadly weapon and the resulting great bodily harm to the victim. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing impeachment with prior felony convictions, that there was no fundamental error in the jury instructions regarding specific intent, nor in the refusal to provide the jury with a transcript of the defendant's testimony. The court also found that the defendant's prior convictions were sufficiently proven and properly used for sentence enhancement and that the defendant did not make a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 5-37).