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 case involves the Defendant, Fernando Mariano, who was determined by the district court at sentencing to have committed a serious violent offense under the Earned Meritorious Deductions Act (EMDA). This determination affected his eligibility for good-time credit.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court abused its discretion by finding that he committed a serious violent offense under the EMDA, contending that the court's conclusion was improperly based on the resulting harm rather than the nature of the offense or his conduct (para 3).
• Appellee (State): The specific arguments of the Appellee are not detailed in the provided text, but it can be inferred that the State supported the district court's determination.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in finding that the Defendant committed a serious violent offense under the EMDA.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's determination that the Defendant committed a serious violent offense for purposes of good-time credit under the EMDA.

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with Linda M. Vanzi, Chief Judge, and Michael E. Vigil, Judge concurring: The Court of Appeals was unpersuaded by the Defendant's memorandum in opposition, which reiterated his position that the district court abused its discretion. The appellate court found that the district court's determination was supported by substantial evidence, specifically noting that the Defendant acted in a physically violent manner and with intent or recklessness likely to cause serious harm. The Defendant's challenge to the proposed conclusion that these findings were supported by substantial evidence was not addressed in his memorandum in opposition, leading the Court of Appeals to adopt its proposed conclusion and affirm the district court's decision (paras 1-4).