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 two counts of child abuse in 2010 and pleaded guilty. His six-year sentence was suspended, and he was placed on five years of supervised probation with specific conditions, including not violating any state laws and not using controlled substances except those legally prescribed. The Defendant's probation was revoked and reinstated in 2012 due to violations, including drug violations. In 2013, the State moved to revoke the Defendant's probation again after he was charged with aggravated battery against a household member. The Defendant completed his probation in March 2016 but appeals a probation term that prohibited him from using medical marijuana, despite having a valid medical marijuana card, and challenges the exclusion of a defense witness's testimony at the probation violation hearing. He also contends that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel at the probation violation hearings (paras 2-3, 6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the probation term prohibiting the use of medical marijuana was illegal and unreasonable, contended that the district court abused its discretion by excluding a defense witness's testimony at the probation violation hearing, and claimed that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel at the probation violation hearings (para 9).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the probation term prohibiting the use of medical marijuana was illegal and unreasonable.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in excluding Defendant’s witness.
• Whether the Defendant's attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel (para 9).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals held that the Defendant’s appeal is moot as to the first two issues and concluded that the Defendant’s attorney did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel (para 1).

Reasons

• LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge; M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge; HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge (concurring): The court found the appeal moot regarding the prohibition of medical marijuana use and the exclusion of a witness since the Defendant had completed his probation. The court also determined that the Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel, as he failed to demonstrate that his attorney's performance was deficient in a manner that prejudiced his defense. The court emphasized that the Defendant's claims regarding the probation term and witness exclusion did not present an actual controversy for which relief could be provided, and the issues were neither of substantial public interest nor capable of repetition yet evading review. Regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, the court concluded that the attorney's failure to schedule a witness for an interview was not objectively reasonable, but the Defendant did not show that this failure prejudiced the outcome of the probation violation hearing (paras 10-28).