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 trafficking controlled substances. He claimed that the district court should have enforced an agreement he made with a State Police agent, which promised him reduced charges and a sentence of probation in exchange for his work as a confidential informant.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court should have enforced the agreement made with a State Police agent, which would have led to reduced charges and a sentence of probation in exchange for working as a confidential informant.
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court should have enforced the agreement between the Defendant and a State Police agent for reduced charges and a sentence of probation in exchange for the Defendant's work as a confidential informant.

Disposition

• The appeal to enforce the agreement made with a State Police agent for reduced charges and a sentence of probation was denied.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, J. (JAMES J. WECHSLER, J., and TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, J., concurring): The court considered the Defendant's memorandum in opposition to the proposed summary disposition but found it unpersuasive. The decision to affirm the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to enforce the agreement was based on the sufficiency of the facts set forth in the docketing statement and the district court's letter decision. The court declined the Defendant's suggestion to assign the appeal to the general calendar for further development of facts using the hearing transcript, indicating the information already provided was adequate to support the affirmation of the district court's decision.