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 two counts of second-degree murder, three counts of kidnapping, one count of conspiracy to commit kidnapping, one count of tampering with evidence, and one count of conspiracy to commit tampering with evidence. The district court decided to run the three kidnapping sentences consecutively to one another, with the other counts running concurrently to these sentences (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the Criminal Sentencing Act (CSA) does not expressly authorize consecutive sentences for crimes committed in a single criminal episode and adjudicated in a single case. Contended that the sentence was illegal due to the CSA's silence on authorizing multiple counts of kidnapping to be run consecutively in a single case (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court imposed an illegal sentence by running Defendant’s three kidnapping sentences consecutively.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to run the Defendant's three kidnapping sentences consecutively (para 10).

Reasons

• Per B. ZAMORA, J. (KRISTINA BOGARDUS, J., and SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, J., concurring):
  The Court of Appeals disagreed with the Defendant's contention that the Legislature has been silent on the issue of consecutive sentencing for multiple counts of kidnapping. It referenced the Criminal Code and common law, which provide the trial courts with the discretion to make sentences consecutive or concurrent. The Court also cited precedent cases where it was established that the common law allows trial courts this discretion in the absence of specific statutory guidance. The Court found no conflict between the Defendant's arguments and the precedent case of State v. Jensen, which concluded that in the absence of a statute regarding concurrent or consecutive sentences for the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, the district court could order the sentences to run consecutively. The Court concluded that the district court did not impose an illegal sentence by running the Defendant's kidnapping sentences consecutively, as the common law and existing Supreme Court precedent support such discretion (paras 2-8).