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 indicted on charges related to two armed robberies of a Taco Bell and a Jack in the Box, occurring on the same day. The State alleged the Defendant drove her husband to both locations, where he committed the robberies. After the second robbery, law enforcement located and pursued the Defendant and her husband, eventually arresting the Defendant (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court abused its discretion by denying a motion for a mistrial, claimed double jeopardy in convictions for conspiracy to commit armed robbery, contended that a 2007 conviction could not enhance sentences under the habitual offender statute, and alleged ineffective counsel for failing to rebut evidence used for sentence enhancement (para 1).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial, argued against the double jeopardy claim, supported the legality of the sentence enhancement under the habitual offender statute, and opposed the claim of ineffective counsel (paras 9, 21, 30).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Defendant's motion for a mistrial.
• Whether the Defendant's convictions for conspiracy to commit armed robbery violate double jeopardy.
• Whether the Defendant's sentence was illegally enhanced under the habitual offender statute.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the sentence enhancement (para 1).

Disposition

• The court reversed one of the Defendant's conspiracy convictions due to double jeopardy but affirmed all other convictions and sentences (para 1).

Reasons

• Regarding the motion for mistrial: The court found no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying the motion for a mistrial, concluding that the State did not intentionally elicit prohibited testimony and that a curative instruction could have mitigated any prejudicial effect (paras 7-20).
  On double jeopardy: The court agreed with the Defendant that her convictions for conspiracy to commit armed robbery of both Taco Bell and Jack in the Box violated her right to be free from double jeopardy, leading to the reversal of one conspiracy conviction (paras 21-29).
  Concerning sentence enhancement: The court determined that sufficient evidence supported the enhancement of the Defendant's sentence under the habitual offender statute, rejecting the Defendant's argument that her sentence was illegal (paras 30-38).
  Regarding ineffective assistance of counsel: The court did not find evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel on the record regarding the sentence enhancement but noted that the Defendant could pursue this claim in a separate habeas corpus proceeding (paras 39).