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 pursuant to a conditional plea for trafficking a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, driving while license revoked, and possessing or claiming an interest in forfeitable property. The Defendant appealed these convictions, challenging the district court's decision (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying a requested continuance which would have allowed for a motion to suppress to be heard prior to trial (para 3).
• Appellee: The State, through its counsel, presumably defended the district court's decisions and opposed the Defendant's appeal, although specific arguments from the Appellee are not detailed in the provided text (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion for a continuance of trial to hear a motion to suppress prior to trial (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions (para 6).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge Michael E. Vigil with Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, found that the Defendant failed to demonstrate how the district court's denial of the motion for continuance violated any rule or law. The Court noted that the Defendant did not explain why the district court should have granted the motion for continuance when the motion to suppress could have been heard immediately prior to trial. Furthermore, the Defendant's counsel did not recall asking the district court to hear the motion to suppress on the morning of the trial, indicating a lack of error on the part of the district court. The Court also highlighted that a party may not invite error and then complain about it on appeal, suggesting that any prejudice suffered by the Defendant was not due to an error by the district court. The Court dismissed the Defendant's arguments as insufficient to overturn the convictions (paras 2-5).