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 four charges, including larceny, conspiracy to commit larceny, and two counts of attempted burglary of a vehicle. In a plea agreement, the Defendant pled guilty to the larceny charges, leading to the dismissal of the burglary charges. Before sentencing, the Defendant sought to withdraw her plea, arguing that the charges for which she pled guilty should merge under double jeopardy principles due to unitary conduct (paras 3-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court should have permitted the withdrawal of her guilty plea because the charges of larceny and conspiracy to commit larceny should merge under double jeopardy principles due to unitary conduct. Additionally, claimed that she should have been allowed to withdraw her excusal of a previously assigned judge (paras 2-6).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in not allowing the Defendant to withdraw her guilty plea based on a double jeopardy claim that requires the merger of the larceny and conspiracy to commit larceny charges due to unitary conduct.
• Whether the Defendant should have been permitted to withdraw her excusal of a previously assigned judge (paras 2, 6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, denying the Defendant's request to withdraw her guilty plea and her request to withdraw her excusal of a previously assigned judge (para 7).

Reasons

• Per VANZI, J. (ZAMORA and IVES, JJ., concurring): The Court found that the Defendant's double jeopardy claim, which argued for the merger of the larceny and conspiracy to commit larceny charges due to unitary conduct, was not supported. The Court applied the two-part test from State v. Swafford, considering whether the conduct was unitary and whether the Legislature intended to punish the offenses separately. It concluded that even if the conduct was unitary, the Legislature intended for multiple punishments for the crimes of conspiracy and accessory to a crime. Regarding the Defendant's claim about the excusal of a previously assigned judge, the Court noted that the Defendant did not file her motion within the ten-day deadline and that any error related to the excusal could not be based on the Defendant's own request (paras 2-6).