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 on one count of trafficking, while two additional charges of conspiracy to commit trafficking were dismissed. The district court ordered the Defendant to pay restitution to the Metro Narcotics Agency Contingency Fund as part of the judgment against him.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court's requirement for him to pay restitution was not a proper legal remedy in this case. Additionally, contended that, even if restitution was deemed proper, he should not be required to pay restitution for the dismissed conspiracy counts.
• Appellee: Indicated that it would not file a memorandum in opposition to the Court's second calendar notice, effectively not contesting the Appellant's arguments regarding restitution.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's requirement for the Defendant to pay restitution was a proper legal remedy in this case.
• Whether the Defendant should be required to pay restitution for dismissed conspiracy counts.

Disposition

• The Court proposed to conclude that only $150 of restitution was proper, given that the Defendant was convicted on only one count of trafficking and the two conspiracy to commit trafficking charges were dismissed.

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE, with LINDA M. VANZI and JULIE J. VARGAS concurring, the Court decided to proceed with summary affirmance, in part, and summary reversal, in part. The decision was based on the lack of opposition from the State to the Court's proposal regarding the appropriateness and amount of restitution. The Appellant's continued argument that the Metro Narcotics Agency cannot be considered a "victim" for the purpose of restitution was noted, but the Court found no new arguments that would alter its proposed conclusion. The reliance on precedent from State v. Mondragon was cited to support the decision-making process, indicating that repetition of earlier arguments without pointing out specific errors of law or fact does not fulfill the requirement to challenge the Court's proposal effectively (para 2).