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

• Lawrence Kolek, the Defendant, was on probation when he allegedly committed several violations, including cutting off his GPS monitor and missing a probation appointment. These actions led to the State's motion to revoke his probation. The district court found sufficient evidence for these violations and decided to revoke the Defendant's probation, imposing the full six-year sentence as per his plea agreement.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Curry County, Fred T. Van Soelen, District Judge: The district court revoked the Defendant's probation and imposed the full six-year sentence contained in his plea agreement.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Argued that there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation, including witness testimony regarding the violations.
• Defendant-Appellant (Kolek): Challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the probation violations, asserted he was not arraigned on an amended motion to revoke probation, and argued that the full six-year sentence was an abuse of discretion by the district court.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation.
• Whether the Defendant's rights were violated due to not being rearraigned on an amended motion to revoke probation.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing the full six-year sentence contained in the Defendant's plea agreement.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the district court to revoke the Defendant's probation and impose the full six-year sentence.

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE, with STEPHEN G. FRENCH and EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judges concurring:
  Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court found that the State presented sufficient evidence, including witness testimony, to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation. The Defendant's general assertions and contrary testimony were not enough to overturn the district court's decision (paras 1-2).
  Rearraignment: The Court determined that the Defendant was not prejudiced by the lack of a formal rearraignment after the State amended its motion to revoke probation. The Defendant did not claim to be unaware of the additional allegations, and his hypothetical assertions about potential actions had he been rearraigned were unpersuasive (para 3).
  Sentencing: The Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reimposing the full sentence contained in the Defendant's plea agreement. The decision was supported by the Defendant's admission of one violation, the commission of a violent crime within five months of probation, and other probation violations including cutting off his GPS monitor and missing a probation appointment (para 4).
  The Court concluded that the Defendant did not provide new facts or authorities to persuade them that the proposed summary disposition was in error, affirming the district court's order (paras 5-6).