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 charged with one count of criminal sexual penetration (CSP) and two counts of threatening a witness. The CSP charge stemmed from an incident where the Defendant allegedly sexually assaulted a woman while she was unconscious due to alcohol and prescription medication. The threatening witness charges were based on allegations that the Defendant made a threatening phone call to cause the woman to drop her charge against him. The jury acquitted the Defendant of the CSP charge but found him guilty of intimidation of a witness (paras 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court miscalculated pretrial confinement credit, the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for intimidation of a witness, and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel (para 5).
• Appellee: Conceded that the Defendant is entitled to presentence confinement credit for a specified period and argued that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for intimidation of a witness (paras 8, 11).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court incorrectly calculated pretrial confinement credit.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that the Defendant knowingly threatened or intimidated a witness.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel (para 5).

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the Defendant's conviction for intimidation of a witness.
• The Court reversed the district court's calculation of presentence confinement credit and remanded for recalculation (para 14).

Reasons

• Per WRAY, J. (ATTREP, J. and MEDINA, J. concurring):
  The Court reviewed de novo the determination of presentence confinement credit and found that the Defendant is entitled to recalculation of this credit. It accepted the State’s concession that the Defendant was entitled to presentence confinement credit for the period between March 19, 2018, and April 9, 2019, and remanded for recalculation to include this period. The Court also indicated that on remand, the Defendant is entitled to credit for any time served between the completion of a drug offense sentence and his release on bond on October 6, 2017 (paras 6-9).
  Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence for the conviction of intimidation of a witness, the Court found that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict. The Court reasoned that even though the Defendant did not directly speak to the victim, it was reasonable for him to expect that the threat made to the victim’s roommate would be communicated to the victim (paras 10-11).
  On the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the Court found that the record on direct appeal did not support a prima facie case. The Court noted that the record showed the defense counsel did engage in questioning relevant to the Defendant’s claims, thus not demonstrating error by counsel (paras 12-13).