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

• Juan Villalobos-Diaz (Defendant) was convicted of multiple charges related to sexual offenses against minors, including criminal sexual penetration and contact, as well as child abuse. The charges spanned various degrees and involved victims under the age of thirteen as well as a child aged thirteen to eighteen. The offenses were alleged to have occurred over broad time periods, with some charges specifying a two-year period and others a one-year period.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) convictions for CSPM in Counts 2 and 3 violated double jeopardy, (2) the right to due process was violated by the long charging period, and (3) insufficient evidence existed to support each conviction.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Conceded that the convictions for CSPM in Counts 3 and 4 violated double jeopardy and that evidence supporting Count 5 was insufficient. The State argued that narrowing the charging period would not have made most defenses viable or plausible and that the defendant’s due process rights were not violated.

Legal Issues

• Whether the convictions for CSPM in Counts 3 and 4 violate double jeopardy.
• Whether the right to due process was violated by the exceptionally long charging period.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support each of the defendant's convictions.

Disposition

• The conviction for CSCM in the second degree (child under thirteen), as charged in Count 5, is reversed.
• Counts 3 and 4 are remanded to the district court to vacate, in its discretion, the conviction of either Counts 3 or 4.
• Otherwise, the balance of the defendant's convictions is affirmed.

Reasons

• BACA, Judge (J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge, and KATHERINE A. WRAY, Judge concurring):
  Double Jeopardy: The court accepted the State's concession that the convictions for CSPM in Counts 3 and 4 violated double jeopardy, based on precedent and the record, and remanded for the vacation of one of these convictions (paras 5).
  Insufficient Evidence for Count 5: The court agreed with the State's concession that evidence for Count 5 was insufficient because the victim was thirteen at the time of the incident, which did not meet the statutory requirement for the charge. The conviction for CSCM in the second degree (child under thirteen) as charged in Count 5 was vacated (paras 6-7).
  Due Process and Charging Period: The court found no due process violation in the charging periods for the convictions. It balanced the need to protect child victims against the defendant's right to due process and concluded that the State had a compelling interest in protecting child victims. The court applied the Baldonado factors to determine the reasonableness of the indictment's time frame and found that the State made reasonable efforts to narrow the time frame of the indictment. The defendant's general assertions of prejudice were deemed insufficient to demonstrate actual prejudice (paras 8-20).