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 for failing to register as a sex offender, specifically for an alleged failure to register after six months, on July 15, 2015 (para 3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued against the conviction and filed a memorandum in opposition to the court's initial proposal to affirm the conviction. Subsequently, filed a memorandum in support of the court's proposed reversal and sought clarification on the possibility of being retried following remand (para 1).
• Appellee: Initially supported the conviction but later filed a notice that it would not oppose the court's proposed reversal of the Defendant's conviction (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's conviction for failing to register as a sex offender should be affirmed or reversed.
• Whether the Defendant can be retried for the same charges following remand (para 2).

Disposition

• The Defendant’s conviction for failure to register as a sex offender was reversed (para 4).
• The case alleging a six-month failure to register was dismissed with prejudice, indicating that the Defendant cannot be retried for this specific charge (para 2).

Reasons

• VANZI, Judge (VARGAS, J., and ATTREP, J., concurring):
  The appellate court initially proposed to affirm the Defendant's conviction but, after considering the Defendant's memorandum in opposition, proposed to reverse the conviction. The State did not oppose this proposed reversal. The court concluded that the Defendant could not be retried for the specific charge of failing to register after six months, as it constituted a non-existent crime under the circumstances described. This decision was influenced by precedent, specifically referencing State v. Johnson, which dealt with the non-existence of certain crimes and the implications for retrial. The court declined to address the potential for future charges related to the Defendant's failure to register as a sex offender, citing insufficient information in the record and the constitutional right to immediate appeal on double jeopardy grounds (paras 1-4).