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 subject to a district court ruling that revoked his suspended sentence and enhanced his two felony convictions by a period of four years each due to being a habitual offender. The Defendant had previously entered into a plea agreement, which he believed subjected him to only a four-year habitual offender enhancement. This belief was based on the language of the written plea agreement and discussions at a hearing following his probation violation.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court improperly imposed an eight-year habitual offender enhancement following his probation revocation, rather than a four-year enhancement. Maintained that the written plea agreement misled him into believing he was subject only to a four-year enhancement and that discussions at the post-probation violation hearing supported his interpretation (paras 2-3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in imposing an eight-year habitual offender enhancement upon the Defendant's probation revocation, contrary to the Defendant's understanding of the plea agreement's terms.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s imposition of an eight-year habitual offender enhancement as a consequence of the Defendant’s probation revocation. Additionally, the case was remanded for correction of a clerical error in the order revoking suspended sentence (para 6).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that the plea agreement adequately informed the Defendant of the sentencing consequences, including the possibility of an eight-year habitual offender enhancement if he violated his probation. This conclusion was based on the agreement's explicit terms regarding the Defendant's prior felony convictions and the habitual offender enhancement (para 3).
  The Court determined that the terms of the plea agreement took precedence over any subsequent discourse at the hearing following the Defendant's probation revocation. It was noted that references to a four-year enhancement at the hearing were not inconsistent with the plea agreement, as the law requires that the sentence for each felony is subject to a four-year enhancement (para 4).
  The Court addressed an apparent clerical error in the district court’s order revoking the suspended sentence, which failed to recite all of the Defendant’s convictions. The case was remanded to correct this error, ensuring all convictions are accurately documented in the order (para 5).