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 by a jury for breaking and entering and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The case involved the Defendant allegedly entering an apartment without permission and being the first aggressor in an assault incident.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the State did not present sufficient evidence to support his conviction for breaking and entering, as it was not proven he entered the apartment without permission. Additionally, contended that he was not the first aggressor in the aggravated assault charge, implying he acted in self-defense.
• Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for breaking and entering.
• Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, particularly regarding the claim of self-defense.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence, convicting the Defendant for breaking and entering and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Reasons

• Per TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge (CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, and JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge concurring):
  The Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's arguments regarding insufficient evidence. For the breaking and entering conviction, the Court noted conflicting evidence about whether the Defendant had permission to enter the apartment but emphasized that it is the jury's role to resolve such conflicts. The Court also highlighted the Defendant's failure to address the analysis under State v. Rubio and to clarify the confusing characterization of evidence presented in the docketing statement. As a result, the Court believed the jury rejected the Defendant's version of the evidence, supporting the conviction.
  Regarding the aggravated assault with a deadly weapon conviction, the Court observed that the Defendant did not address the inconsistencies and confusing information about the events leading to the assault. The Court proposed that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to reject the self-defense claim, supporting the conviction. The Court affirmed the convictions based on the jury's resolution of evidence conflicts and the sufficiency of evidence presented.