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 violating a restraining order. This conviction stemmed from incidents occurring on September 8, 2015, and October 13, 2015. The September incidents involved stalking, while the October incident violated a restraining order prohibiting domestic violence. The Defendant entered an Alford plea to the stalking charge, which did not necessarily include the October 13 incident in its pattern of conduct (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, Karen L. Townsend, District Judge, March 5, 2018.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that double jeopardy bars his convictions for both stalking and violation of a restraining order prohibiting domestic violence, as the conduct was not unitary and the Legislature did not intend to punish the offenses separately (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether double jeopardy bars the Defendant's convictions for both stalking and violation of a restraining order prohibiting domestic violence.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for violating a restraining order (para 5).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge concurring): The court applied a two-part test to determine if double jeopardy applied, examining if the Defendant's conduct was unitary and if the Legislature intended to punish the offenses separately. The court found the conduct was not unitary as the incidents occurred on separate days and involved distinct actions. Therefore, double jeopardy did not bar punishment for both offenses, leading to the affirmation of the conviction for violating a restraining order (paras 2-4).