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, Edmund Evensen, was involved in an incident where he, armed with a knife, attempted to rob the Victim, Steven Vigil, who was parked at an ATM. During the encounter, the Defendant cut the Victim's neck with the knife. Following the incident, law enforcement officers, without a warrant, entered the Defendant's hotel room based on information from a security guard and the Victim's descriptions. Inside the room, officers seized a knife and arrested the Defendant. The Defendant was later indicted on charges of attempt to commit armed robbery and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon (paras 4-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless entry into his hotel room and contended that his convictions violated his constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the warrantless entry was justified by the Defendant's consent and that the knife was in plain view once inside the hotel room. Additionally, argued that the Defendant's convictions did not violate the double jeopardy clause (paras 6, 10-11).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless entry into his hotel room.
• Whether the Defendant's convictions violated his constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the warrantless entry into the Defendant's hotel room was justified by consent and that the Defendant's convictions did not violate his right to be free from double jeopardy (para 2).

Reasons

• Judges: JONATHAN B. SUTIN authored the opinion, with MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge, and J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, concurring.
  The court found substantial evidence supporting the district court's conclusion that the Defendant consented to the warrantless entry, based on Deputy Cordova's supplemental report and other testimonies, thus not considering the exigent circumstances argument (paras 12-17).
  The court also concluded that the knife was in plain view, justifying its seizure under the plain view doctrine, as the officer was lawfully present in the hotel room by virtue of the Defendant's consent (paras 18-23).
  Regarding the double jeopardy issue, the court determined that the Defendant's convictions for attempt to commit armed robbery and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy, as they were premised on unitary conduct but intended by the Legislature to punish separately due to addressing distinct social harms (paras 24-36).