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 of misdemeanor battery and felony-level tampering with evidence. The specifics leading to these convictions are not detailed in the provided text.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant opposed the proposed summary disposition regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to support her convictions (para 2).
• Appellee: The State did not oppose the proposal to reverse in part and remand for the purpose of amending the judgment and sentence and resentencing in accordance with State v. Radosevich (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for misdemeanor battery and felony-level tampering with evidence.
• Whether the judgment and sentence for the felony-level tampering with evidence conviction should be amended to reflect a conviction for tampering with evidence of an indeterminate offense (a petty misdemeanor), and for resentencing in accordance with State v. Radosevich.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Defendant's convictions.
• The Court reversed in part and remanded with instructions to amend the judgment and sentence to reflect a conviction for indeterminate offense tampering, and to resentence accordingly (para 3).

Reasons

• J. Miles Hanisee, Chief Judge (with Jennifer L. Attrep, Judge, and Briana H. Zamora, Judge, concurring): The Court remained unpersuaded by the Defendant's opposition to the proposed summary disposition regarding the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court decided to affirm the convictions based on the sufficiency of the evidence. However, the Court agreed to reverse in part and remand for amendment of the judgment and sentence to reflect a conviction for tampering with evidence of an indeterminate offense, and for resentencing in accordance with State v. Radosevich, recognizing the need for the judgment and sentence to accurately reflect the nature of the offense and the appropriate sentencing (paras 1-3).