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 on three counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM), involving incidents where the Defendant unlawfully touched the victim, who was between the ages of thirteen and eighteen. The first count was based on a position of authority theory and involved the unlawful touching of the victim's unclothed intimate parts. The other two counts were based on the same theory but involved the victim being clothed (paras 7-8).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued for the addition of a new issue regarding the validity of his waiver of the right to a jury trial, claiming it needed to be an on-the-record showing that the waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made. The Defendant also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, particularly pointing out the victim's inability to specify exact dates of the incidents (paras 2-3, 6, 8-9).
• Appellee: The State argued that constitutional rights, including the right to a jury trial, can be waived without a written record if the defendant signs a waiver with court approval and the state's consent. Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the State presented testimonies and evidence supporting the Defendant's convictions for CSCM, emphasizing the credibility of the victim's testimony and the general time period of the occurrences (paras 3-4, 7-9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement to add a new issue regarding the waiver of the right to a jury trial should be granted (para 2).
• Whether the Defendant's waiver of the right to a jury trial was validly made (para 3).
• Whether the Defendant's convictions for three counts of CSCM were supported by sufficient evidence (para 6).

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied.
• The Defendant’s convictions were affirmed (para 1, 10).

Reasons

• ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge, with JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Chief Judge, and SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge concurring:
  The Court found the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement did not meet the criteria for adding new issues in cases assigned to the summary calendar, particularly because the issue raised was not deemed viable. The Court referenced that constitutional rights can be waived without a written record and noted the Defendant had signed a waiver for a jury trial, which was approved by the court and consented by the State (paras 2-4).
  Regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel and the harshness of the sentence, these issues were deemed abandoned by the Defendant as no further argument was provided in support of these claims (para 5).
  On the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court upheld the convictions, stating that substantial evidence supported the verdicts. The Court emphasized the credibility of the victim's testimony and the general time period of the occurrences as sufficient, despite the Defendant's challenge to the victim's inability to specify exact dates. The Court also declined to place the case on the general calendar based on speculative error review (paras 6-9).