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 after a jury trial of assault on a peace officer and two counts of evading or obstructing an officer. The charges stemmed from two separate sets of acts: first, driving away from and refusing to stop for an officer, and second, physically resisting by pulling away from the officer and refusing to comply with instructions while inside a residence (para 3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Curry County, Matthew E. Chandler, District Judge, December 13, 2017: Convictions for assault on a peace officer and two counts of evading or obstructing an officer were affirmed.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the Court's proposed disposition to affirm the convictions was in error, but did not present new facts, law, or arguments beyond those already considered by the Court (para 2).
• Appellee: The State, through its representation, supported the affirmance of the Defendant's convictions, as indicated by the Court's notice of proposed disposition and the lack of new arguments from the Defendant.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's actions constituted separate offenses or should be considered as one continuous act of fleeing from the police, thus implicating concerns of double jeopardy (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions for assault on a peace officer and two counts of evading or obstructing an officer (para 4).

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with M. Monica Zamora and Julie J. Vargas concurring, the Court found that the Defendant's memorandum in opposition did not present any new facts, law, or arguments that were not already addressed in the Court's notice of proposed disposition. The Court reiterated its disagreement with the Defendant's double jeopardy argument, distinguishing the Defendant's actions into two separate sets of acts: fleeing from police and physically resisting police. The Court concluded that these constituted separate offenses, thereby affirming the convictions without a violation of double jeopardy principles (paras 2-4).