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 case involves the Defendant, Jason Sanchez, who was convicted for aggravated stalking (violation of an order of protection) and violation of an order of protection against Jocelyn Calderon, with whom he shares a minor child. The order of protection was obtained by Calderon due to Sanchez's repeated communications not related to their child and contacting her employer. The charges were based on communications directed to Calderon on a specific day, including phone calls and text messages about their child and the domestic matter (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was a fundamental error in the jury instruction on aggravated stalking, insufficient evidence for the convictions, multiple evidentiary errors leading to an unfair trial, and that the convictions violated double jeopardy protections (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Conceded that it failed to prove the charges against the Defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically failing to prove that the communications were not authorized by the domestic matter (para 1, 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was a fundamental error in the jury instruction on aggravated stalking.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions.
• Whether multiple evidentiary errors deprived the Defendant of a fair trial.
• Whether the Defendant's convictions violated double jeopardy protections against multiple punishments for the same offense.

Disposition

• The convictions for aggravated stalking (violation of an order of protection) and violation of an order of protection were reversed (para 5).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Jennifer L. Attrep, J. Miles Hanisee, and Kristina Bogardus, reversed the Defendant's convictions. The reversal was based on the State's concession and the Court's agreement that the State failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly failing to demonstrate that the Defendant's communications were not authorized by the domestic matter. The Court noted that the order of protection allowed communication as permitted in the domestic matter, and the State did not introduce sufficient evidence at trial to show that the Defendant's communications violated the order. Specifically, at least two of the Defendant's text messages appeared to be explicitly permitted under the domestic matter, and there was no evidence to support that the other communications were unauthorized. The Court concluded that the convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence, leading to their reversal and remand for proceedings consistent with the decision (paras 1-5).