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 of battery upon a peace officer following a conditional plea agreement. He challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, claiming he was acting in self-defense when he hit a deputy.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that evidence should have been suppressed due to an illegal stop and that he was acting in self-defense when he hit the deputy (paras 1-2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence based on the "new crime" exception to the exclusionary rule.
• Whether the Defendant could assert self-defense in response to the motion to suppress evidence.

Disposition

• The judgment and sentence of the district court were affirmed (para 5).

Reasons

• VANZI, Judge, with M. MONICA ZAMORA, Chief Judge, and JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge concurring, found that the Defendant's repetition of arguments regarding the illegal stop and self-defense did not meet the burden to specifically point out errors of law or fact in the notice of proposed summary disposition (para 2). The Court held that regardless of the legality of the deputy’s actions, the Defendant did not have the right to physically attack a law enforcement officer, and such an attack constitutes "new criminal activity" not subject to the exclusionary rule (para 3). With regard to self-defense, the Court noted that the district court's ruling on the motion to suppress was not based on an assessment of the self-defense argument and that, based on the facts presented, the Defendant would not have been entitled to a directed verdict on the question of self-defense (para 4).