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 two counts of aggravated battery, specifically with a deadly weapon and causing great bodily harm.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (State): Agreed with the appellate court's analysis regarding the jurisdictional problem due to the pendency of a prior appeal, which deprived the district court of jurisdiction to amend the judgment and sentence. The State also concurred with the appellate court's analysis on the double jeopardy issue but argued that the precedent cited by the Defendant regarding substitution of convictions should be limited or distinguished.
• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the amended judgment and sentence due to the pendency of a prior appeal. Additionally, raised concerns that the substitution of a conviction for aggravated battery for the conviction for aggravated battery on a household member would violate precedent, and that the entry of multiple convictions for aggravated battery would violate double jeopardy principles.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court had jurisdiction to amend the judgment and sentence during the pendency of a prior appeal.
• Whether substitution of a conviction for aggravated battery for the conviction for aggravated battery on a household member violates precedent.
• Whether the entry of multiple convictions for aggravated battery violates double jeopardy principles.

Disposition

• The appellate court reversed the amended judgment and sentence and remanded for further proceedings consistent with their analysis.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, J. (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, J., J. MILES HANISEE, J., concurring): The appellate court found that the district court lacked jurisdiction to amend the judgment and sentence due to the pendency of a prior appeal, aligning with established precedent (paras 1-2). The State's agreement with this analysis was noted. On the issues likely to recur on remand, the appellate court expressed concern over the substitution of convictions and potential double jeopardy violations, referencing relevant case law (paras 3-4). While the State concurred with the double jeopardy concern, it sought to limit or distinguish the precedent cited by the Defendant regarding conviction substitution. The appellate court decided to allow these matters to be argued and evaluated on remand (para 4).