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 June 7, 2016, police were dispatched to the residence of the Defendant, where they discovered Vanessa Delgado deceased. The Defendant confessed to strangling her and then fleeing with their four children (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for second-degree murder, claiming the State failed to disprove his claim of sufficient provocation. Also contended that his convictions for second-degree murder and battery on a household member violated double jeopardy (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The State's specific arguments are not detailed in the decision, but it agreed with the Defendant's double jeopardy claim (para 10).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for second-degree murder.
• Whether the Defendant's convictions for second-degree murder and battery on a household member violate double jeopardy.

Disposition

• Affirmed the Defendant's conviction for second-degree murder.
• Reversed the Defendant's conviction for battery on a household member due to double jeopardy concerns.
• Remanded for entry of an amended judgment and sentence (para 15).

Reasons

• M. Monica Zamora, Judge, with Linda M. Vanzi and Julie J. Vargas, Judges concurring, provided the opinion. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Defendant's conviction for second-degree murder, rejecting the Defendant's claim of sufficient provocation based on his confrontation with the victim about her affair and his subsequent loss of self-control (paras 3-9). The court disagreed with the Defendant's interpretation of the evidence, emphasizing the jury's role in determining the credibility of the Defendant's claims and the sufficiency of provocation (paras 6-9). Regarding double jeopardy, the court agreed with the Defendant and the State that the convictions for second-degree murder and battery on a household member, based on the same conduct of strangulation, violated the prohibition against multiple punishments for the same offense. The court concluded that the Legislature did not intend to allow multiple punishments for the same conduct in this context, leading to the reversal of the battery conviction (paras 10-14).