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 pleaded guilty to four counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor (CDM) and third-degree criminal sexual penetration (CSP). The charges stemmed from allegations that in September 2016, the Defendant provided alcohol to four minor children, who then consumed it. Additionally, there were negotiations involving the exchange of sexual favors or explicit photographs for alcohol between the Defendant and two of the minors (paras 2, 18-24).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the district court erred by denying the emergency motion to release the raw data used in the presentence report, argued that the convictions for four counts of CDM violate double jeopardy, and claimed the district court improperly designated the third-degree CSP conviction as a serious violent offense without making specific factual findings (paras 2-3, 17-18, 28).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the district court did not err in its decisions regarding the emergency motion, the double jeopardy claim, and the designation of the CSP conviction as a serious violent offense (paras 4-16, 19-27, 28-30).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant’s emergency motion for the release of raw data and a continuance.
• Whether the Defendant’s convictions for four counts of CDM violate double jeopardy.
• Whether the district court erred by failing to make specific findings when designating the Defendant’s third-degree CSP conviction as a serious violent offense.

Disposition

• The district court’s order denying the Defendant’s emergency motion was affirmed.
• Two of the Defendant’s CDM convictions were found to violate double jeopardy, and the matter was remanded to vacate these convictions and resentence the Defendant for only two CDM convictions.
• The case was remanded for the district court to enter findings regarding the Defendant’s third-degree CSP conviction being designated as a serious violent offense (para 1).

Reasons

• VARGAS, J., DUFFY, J., HENDERSON, J. (concurring): The panel concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Defendant’s emergency motion for raw data and a continuance, as the Defendant failed to demonstrate entitlement to the raw data under Rule 5-501(A)(1), (4) or that his rights to due process or effective assistance of counsel were violated (paras 4-16). Regarding the double jeopardy claim, the court found that the Defendant’s actions did not present sufficient indicia of distinctness to justify four separate CDM convictions, thus violating double jeopardy principles for two of the convictions (paras 17-25). Lastly, the court agreed with the Defendant that the district court erred by not making specific findings to support the designation of the third-degree CSP conviction as a serious violent offense, necessitating a remand for such findings (paras 28-30).