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 convicted for criminal sexual penetration in the third degree and sentenced to four years for having committed a serious violent offense. The case took fifty-one months to bring to trial, during which the Defendant was initially incarcerated for three months before being released on bond, and later reincarcerated for another month due to a misdemeanor charge. The Defendant made several personal requests for delays and acquiesced to nearly every delay that occurred in bringing his case to trial.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Curry County, Fred T. Van Soelen, District Judge: Conviction for criminal sexual penetration in the third degree and sentencing to four years for having committed a serious violent offense.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the delay in trial was justified by the Defendant's own actions, including requests for delays and acquiescence to delays, and that the evidence supporting the conviction was sufficient.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for criminal sexual penetration.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence, denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss for a speedy trial violation and upholding the conviction.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, with STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge, and TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge (specially concurring):
  The Court found the fifty-one month delay to trial extraordinary but justified, noting the Defendant's significant role in causing the delays through personal requests and acquiescence (paras 3-4, 16).
  The Court applied the analysis from State v. Serros, considering the length of delay and the reasons for delay, including defense-caused delays and administrative reasons. The Court found that the Defendant's actions and the lack of particularized prejudice did not violate his right to a speedy trial (paras 3-9).
  Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court held that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, the victim’s testimony constituted substantial evidence of unlawfulness and a lack of consent. The Court refused to reweigh the evidence or indulge in inferences inconsistent with the verdict (paras 11-12).
  Judge GARCIA, in his specially concurring opinion, emphasized the extraordinary nature of the fifty-one month delay but concurred with the majority's decision, highlighting the Defendant's role in the delays and the detailed ruling from the district court that allowed for a comprehensive analysis of the Defendant's actions (para 15-16).