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 by a jury for possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and tampering with evidence. The case revolves around these two charges and the subsequent legal proceedings challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support her convictions for possession of methamphetamine and tampering with evidence.
• Appellee (State): Filed a notice of nonopposition, indicating it did not intend to file a memorandum in opposition to the Defendant's challenge.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for possession of methamphetamine.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for tampering with evidence.

Disposition

• The conviction for possession of methamphetamine is affirmed.
• The conviction for tampering with evidence is reversed and remanded for proceedings to vacate the conviction.

Reasons

• Per Medina, J., with Henderson, J., and Yohalem, J., concurring:
  The Court, after considering the Defendant's memorandum in opposition, decided to affirm the conviction for possession of methamphetamine, as the Defendant's arguments did not persuade the Court that the initial proposal to affirm was erroneous (para 2).
  The Court concluded that the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction for tampering with evidence, leading to the decision to reverse and remand for proceedings to vacate this conviction, especially in the absence of opposition from either party (para 2-3).