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 involved in a fatal collision while driving at a high rate of speed, resulting in the deaths of two individuals in another car and serious injuries to two passengers in the Defendant's vehicle. The Defendant entered a no contest plea to two counts of homicide by vehicle (reckless driving) and two counts of great bodily harm by vehicle (reckless driving). The plea agreement specified that each offense is an "optional serious violent offense" and that the Earned Meritorious Deductions Act (EMDA) provisions would apply if the Defendant was incarcerated on a "serious violent offense" (paras 4-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court abused its discretion by designating the conviction for third-degree vehicular homicide as a serious violent offense based on the specific speed at the time of the collision, contending there was insufficient evidence to support this determination (para 2).
• Appellee: Contended that the Appellant failed to preserve the issue for appeal by not objecting to the State’s reliance on his speeds, not submitting contrary evidence, and not challenging the district court’s reliance on the speeds during the sentencing (para 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in designating the Defendant's conviction for third-degree vehicular homicide as a serious violent offense under the Earned Meritorious Deductions Act based on the specific speed at the time of the collision (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s designation of the Defendant’s crime for homicide by vehicle as a serious violent offense (para 13).

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judges Zachary A. Ives, Jacqueline R. Medina, and Megan P. Duffy, unanimously concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its designation. The Court reasoned that the Defendant did not object to the State's claims about his speed at the time of the collision, nor did he present any contrary evidence or formally challenge the reliance on these speeds during sentencing. The Court found this situation analogous to precedent where issues not raised at trial were not considered on appeal. Furthermore, the Court noted that the district court considered multiple factors, not just the Defendant's speed, in its determination, including the Defendant's acknowledgment of his reckless driving and the circumstances of the collision. The Court held that the district court acted within its discretion, considering the factual context of the case, in determining that the Defendant’s offense was a serious violent offense (paras 8-12).