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 battery upon a peace officer and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. The case involves the Defendant's actions towards a peace officer, including fleeing and striking the officer during an arrest attempt.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for both convictions, specifically questioning the evidence supporting his intent to commit battery upon a peace officer (paras 2-4).
• Appellee: The State argued that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, relying on precedents that circumstantial evidence can establish intent (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the Defendant's intent for the conviction of battery upon a peace officer.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions for battery upon a peace officer and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer (para 5).

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with Kristina Bogardus and Jacqueline R. Medina, JJ., concurring: The Court found the Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for both charges unpersuasive. It noted the Defendant's tacit acknowledgment of the sufficiency of evidence regarding the charge of resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer, aligning with precedent that supports conviction based on the defendant's actions of ignoring and then running from the arresting officer. Regarding the battery upon a peace officer charge, the Court rejected the Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of evidence on intent, citing circumstantial evidence and precedents that support the inference of intent from the Defendant's actions, including fleeing and striking the officer. The Court adhered to its initial assessment and affirmed the convictions based on the reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary disposition and the analysis of the memorandum in opposition (paras 1-5).