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 fourth-degree felony fraud, which was enhanced due to his status as a habitual offender. The enhancement of his sentence became a point of contention, specifically whether it should be increased by four years rather than one.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in re-sentencing him, maintaining that the original sentence should have remained in place. Cited State v. Franklin and State v. Boyer in support of his argument (paras 2-3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Filed a motion for re-sentencing, pointing out the judge’s oversight in referencing only one of the two agreed-upon enhancements during the initial sentencing. Argued for the enforcement of the plea agreement, which contemplated the use of two prior felony convictions for sentence enhancement (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in enhancing the Defendant's sentence based on his habitual offender status.
• Whether the Defendant's expectation of finality was violated by the written judgment and sentence not conforming to the plea agreement.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the enhanced sentence as agreed upon in the plea agreement (para 4).

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Timothy L. Garcia, J., concurring): The Court found the Defendant's argument unconvincing because the plea agreement explicitly contemplated the use of two of his prior felony convictions for sentence enhancement. The Court noted that any oral statement made by the judge at the sentencing hearing was not binding and could be changed before a written order was filed. The State's motion for re-sentencing highlighted the oversight of referencing only one of the two enhancements, leading to another sentencing hearing where the judge corrected this oversight. The Court concluded that the written judgment and sentence, which imposed the enhanced sentence as per the plea agreement, did not constitute a sentencing error. The Defendant's expectation of finality was deemed unreasonable as the sentence had not yet been reduced to writing and did not conform to the plea agreement (paras 2-4).