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 receiving stolen property, specifically tires and a projector television, which were identified as having been stolen from a neighboring residence. Neighbors witnessed the items being moved from the victim's property to the Defendant's residence. Law enforcement found the stolen items at the Defendant's location and obtained her acknowledgment regarding the origin of the television. The value of the stolen property exceeded $500.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued ineffective assistance of counsel in the preparation of the docketing statement and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the value of the stolen items and her possession of them. Additionally, the Defendant contested the district court's omission of a definitional instruction on possession.
• Appellee (State): Presented evidence through the testimony of the property owner, neighbors, and a law enforcement officer to establish the Defendant's possession and knowledge of the stolen nature of the items, as well as their value.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel in relation to the preparation of the docketing statement.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for receiving stolen property, specifically regarding the value of the stolen items and the Defendant's possession and knowledge of their stolen nature.
• Whether the district court erred by not including a definitional instruction on possession.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied.
• The conviction for receiving stolen property was affirmed.

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Linda M. Vanzi, C.J., and Michael E. Vigil, J., concurring):
  The Court concluded that the record was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel, rejecting the claim without prejudice to the Defendant's ability to pursue habeas proceedings on this issue (para 2).
  Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court found that the State provided adequate support for each element of the offense. The testimony of the property owner, neighbors, and law enforcement, along with the Defendant's acknowledgment, were sufficient to establish her knowledge and control over the stolen items, as well as their value exceeding $500 (paras 4-6).
  The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the owner's testimony about the value of the television was insufficient, stating that it was the jury's role to weigh expressions of uncertainty and that the owner's valuation was clear (para 7).
  The Court also found that the evidence supported the conclusion that the Defendant "kept" the stolen items, dismissing the Defendant's analogy to a previous case where the circumstantial evidence was deemed insufficient. The presence of the Defendant's boyfriend did not alter the outcome (para 8).
  On the issue of the jury instruction, the Court reviewed for fundamental error due to the Defendant not raising the argument below. It concluded that the failure to provide a supplemental instruction on the definition of possession did not constitute fundamental error, as possession was not disputed and evidence consistent with the Defendant's possession was presented (paras 9-11).