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 criminal damage to property valued in excess of $1,000 and was sentenced as a habitual offender. He filed a motion for reconsideration of his sentence, arguing that the State provided inadmissible evidence for his prior convictions and that he had additional mitigating factors to present (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence provided by the State to prove his prior convictions was inadmissible and that he had additional mitigating factors that should be considered for his sentence (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Responded that the Defendant's judgment and sentence lacked finality due to a pending motion to reconsider sentence, implying that the appeal was premature (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court retained jurisdiction to rule on the Defendant's motion for reconsideration of his sentence after he filed a notice of appeal.
• Whether the appeal lacks finality due to the unresolved motion to reconsider sentence, making it premature for appellate review.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed for lack of a final order (para 6).

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Chief Judge Roderick T. Kennedy, Judge Michael E. Vigil, and Judge M. Monica Zamora, unanimously concluded that the district court typically loses jurisdiction over a case once a defendant files a notice of appeal. However, in cases where a defendant has filed a proper motion for sentence modification under Rule 5-801, the district court must resolve this motion before an appeal can proceed to ensure the case's finality. In this instance, the district court did not issue a formal ruling on the Defendant's motion for reconsideration of his sentence, and the motion had not been withdrawn, leaving the case without the finality required for appellate review. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed (paras 3-6).