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 aggravated assault with intent to kill, aggravated battery (deadly weapon), and tampering with evidence. The events leading to these convictions are not detailed in the provided text.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant appealed her convictions and moved to amend the docketing statement to add the issue of whether double jeopardy requires merger of her conviction for aggravated assault with intent to kill and her conviction for aggravated battery (deadly weapon). Additionally, the Defendant claimed that trial counsel was ineffective (paras 2-3).
• Appellee: The State opposed the Defendant's appeal, but specific arguments made by the State in response to the Defendant's claims are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether double jeopardy requires merger of the Defendant's conviction for aggravated assault with intent to kill and her conviction for aggravated battery (deadly weapon) (para 2).
• Whether the Defendant's trial counsel was ineffective (para 3).

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied.
• The district court judgment was affirmed, upholding the Defendant's convictions (para 4).

Reasons

• VIGIL, Judge (VARGAS, Judge and GALLEGOS, Judge concurring):
  The Court denied the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement to add the issue of double jeopardy, deeming the issue not viable based on precedent in State v. Cowden. The Court proposed to affirm the convictions on the grounds that the Defendant had not established a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Defendant's memorandum in opposition did not dispute the correctness of the Court's calendar notice regarding ineffective assistance of counsel. The decision to affirm was based on the Defendant's failure to specifically point out errors of law and fact in response to the Court's calendar notice, as required by precedent in State v. Mondragon (paras 2-4).