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 on probation when an issue arose involving eyewitness testimony and GPS tracking evidence. The conflict between these two types of evidence led to the revocation of the Defendant's probation.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by crediting eyewitness testimony over contrary GPS tracking evidence (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in resolving conflicts in testimony by choosing to believe eyewitness testimony over GPS tracking evidence.
• Whether the case should be reassigned to the general calendar for full briefing due to the issues presented.

Disposition

• The appeal from the revocation of the Defendant's probation was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee, Judge Jacqueline R. Medina, and Judge Megan P. Duffy, unanimously affirmed the district court's decision. The Court held that it is within the district court's purview to resolve conflicts in testimony and that the appellate court does not reweigh evidence on appeal. The Defendant's repetition of arguments previously made did not fulfill the requirement to specifically point out errors in law or fact. Furthermore, the Court rejected the Defendant's request to reassign the matter to the general calendar for full briefing, stating that the facts were undisputed and reassignment would serve no purpose other than to allow for an unnecessary review of the record (paras 2-4).