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, employed at an optometry practice, was responsible for billing and handling payments. She worked nontraditional hours to care for her ill husband, requiring her to be physically present in the office for logging into the billing system. The practice used "Revolution EHR" for billing and a digital timekeeping system. A financial decline led to a forensic accounting review, revealing discrepancies in the Defendant's logged and reported working hours, including logging in from an external IP address and being paid for unworked hours, amounting to $28,826 (paras 2-7).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the fraud conviction and that the judgment and sentence did not accurately reflect the district court’s ruling on double jeopardy grounds regarding the convictions for fraud and computer access with intent to defraud or embezzle (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The State agreed with the Defendant that the judgment and sentence did not reflect the district court's ruling that the conviction for computer access with intent to defraud or embezzle should be vacated on double jeopardy grounds (para 16).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for fraud.
• Whether the judgment and sentence accurately reflected the district court’s ruling on double jeopardy grounds regarding the convictions for fraud and computer access with intent to defraud or embezzle.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the Defendant's conviction for fraud and remanded to the district court to amend its judgment and sentence to reflect the court’s dismissal of the Defendant’s conviction of computer access with the intent to defraud or embezzle (para 17).

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judges Jacqueline R. Medina, J. Miles Hanisee, and Megan P. Duffy, found sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for fraud, highlighting the discrepancies between the hours the Defendant reported working and the hours she was logged into the billing system, as well as instances of her logging in from an external IP address. The Court agreed with both parties that the judgment and sentence did not reflect the district court's ruling regarding the convictions for fraud and computer access with intent to defraud or embezzle being based on unitary conduct. The Court decided to affirm the fraud conviction and remand for correction of the judgment and sentence to vacate the conviction for computer access with intent to defraud or embezzle on double jeopardy grounds (paras 9-17).