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 found guilty of three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and one count of unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court improperly imposed fees as part of his sentence without considering his indigency and sought a reduced sentence based on favorable post-arrest conduct, including the request for sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively (paras 2-3).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court improperly imposed fees as part of the Defendant's sentence without considering his indigency.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to reduce sentence based on his post-arrest conduct.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed.

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Judges M. Monica Zamora, Michael D. Bustamante, and Cynthia A. Fry, unanimously affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence. Regarding the imposition of fees, the court found the issue not ripe for review because there was no indication that a demand for payment had been made or that the Defendant would not be excused from the obligation due to indigency. The court also noted that the Defendant would have the opportunity to raise inability to pay as a defense when called upon to pay these fees (para 2). On the issue of sentence reduction, the court deferred to the district court's discretion, finding no abuse of discretion as the decision to reduce a sentence is within the sound discretion of the district court and there were no legal defects such as failure to award pre-sentence confinement credit or double jeopardy concerns (para 3).