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 of two counts of criminal sexual penetration in the fourth degree against his fifteen-year-old cousin, involving penile penetration of the anus and digital penetration of the vagina. The incident occurred after the Defendant, having been kicked out of his own house, was staying at the victim's house. The victim reported becoming tired and going to sleep after consuming a beverage provided by the Defendant, later awakening to the Defendant entering her room and initiating the assaults.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the two convictions for criminal sexual penetration violated double jeopardy protections, contending that the sequential penetrations constituted a single course of conduct with a singular intent to engage in sexual relations with one individual.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant failed to provide an adequate record for review of his double jeopardy claim and argued that the two penetrations were sufficiently distinct acts to warrant separate convictions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's two convictions for criminal sexual penetration in the fourth degree violate double jeopardy protections.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions on both counts, holding that the Defendant's two convictions did not violate double jeopardy.

Reasons

• Per SUTIN, J. (with CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, concurring), the court conducted a double jeopardy analysis and determined that the two penetrations were sufficiently distinct acts to warrant separate convictions. The court considered factors such as the temporal proximity of the penetrations, the location of the victim during each penetration, the existence of an intervening event, the sequencing of penetrations, the Defendant's intent, and the number of victims. The court found that the serial penetrations of different orifices with different objects were distinct acts under the Herron factors. The court also distinguished this case from others cited by the Defendant, noting that those cases involved either repeated attempts to penetrate the same orifice or simultaneous contacts, neither of which applied to the Defendant's actions.