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 after a jury trial for one count of trafficking controlled substances by distribution and one count of conspiracy to commit trafficking controlled substances by distribution.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (State): Argued against the Defendant's claims regarding violations of the right to a speedy trial, prejudice due to late disclosure of a witness and late interview of another, improper admission of video evidence without audio, and the admissibility of certain testimonies and exclusion of evidence regarding alleged misconduct. Additionally, the State opposed the Defendant's claims of double jeopardy, illegal sentence, and the sequence of convictions required for habitual offender enhancement.
• Appellant (Defendant): Contended that his right to a speedy trial was violated, that he was prejudiced by the State's late disclosure of a witness and late interview of another witness, that the district court erred by allowing video evidence without audio to be played before the jury, and that the court improperly admitted and excluded certain evidence. The Defendant also raised issues of double jeopardy and an illegal sentence based on the habitual offender enhancement statute.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated.
• Whether the late disclosure of a witness and late interview of another witness prejudiced the Defendant.
• Whether the district court committed fundamental error by permitting video evidence to be played before the jury without accompanying audio.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting one witness's testimony and in excluding evidence regarding another witness's alleged misconduct.
• Whether the Defendant's convictions for trafficking and conspiracy to commit trafficking violated double jeopardy principles.
• Whether the Defendant's sentence was illegal under the habitual offender enhancement statute.

Disposition

• Affirmed the Defendant's convictions for trafficking controlled substances by distribution and conspiracy to commit trafficking controlled substances by distribution.
• Affirmed the enhancement of the Defendant's sentence under the habitual offender statute.

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge (with JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge and TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring): The court was not persuaded by the Defendant's arguments regarding the violation of the right to a speedy trial, prejudice from late disclosure and interview of witnesses, the admission of video evidence without audio, and the admissibility and exclusion of certain evidence (paras 1-2). The court initially considered reversing the conviction for conspiracy on double jeopardy grounds but, after reviewing additional facts, affirmed both the trafficking and conspiracy convictions, finding no double jeopardy violation (paras 3-4). Regarding the illegal sentence claim, the court noted the Defendant's argument that the State failed to prove the conviction-crime sequence required for habitual offender enhancement but ultimately affirmed the sentence enhancement, suggesting the Defendant could file a petition for habeas corpus if he wished to pursue the argument further (paras 5-8).