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 armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and resisting arrest. The case involved a robbery at a Subway shop, where the Defendant and an accomplice, armed with a firearm, threatened force or violence to take cash. The accomplice testified against the Defendant, and evidence including a videotape of the robbery and a lapel video of the Defendant resisting arrest was presented. The Defendant also faced a second incident of resisting arrest at the police station.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in excluding alibi testimony from Kimberly Delarosa, which should have been grounds for a new trial. The Defendant also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the exclusion of the alibi testimony was stipulated by the Defendant and that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and resisting arrest.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in excluding alibi testimony, warranting a new trial.
• Whether there was ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the stipulation to exclude the alibi testimony.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and resisting arrest.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, upholding the district court’s judgment and sentence.

Reasons

• VARGAS, J., DUFFY, J., and IVES, J. concurring:
  The court found that the Defendant waived her challenge to the exclusion of alibi testimony by stipulating to its exclusion, thus not establishing a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 2-4).
  The decision to limit Delarosa to character testimony and then strike her alibi testimony was considered a reasonable trial tactic, not indicative of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court suggested that if the Defendant believes the issue has merit, it could be pursued in a habeas proceeding (para 4).
  Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the court reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict. It found substantial evidence, including accomplice testimony, videotape of the robbery, and lapel video of the Defendant resisting arrest, to support the convictions beyond a reasonable doubt (paras 5-7).