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 aggravated assault and shoplifting after an incident where he passed all points of sale without paying for several bottles of alcohol and other items at a Smith’s grocery store. When confronted by Phil Gonzales, a loss prevention officer, the Defendant removed a knife from his pocket and advanced towards him. The incident was supported by the testimony of Phil Gonzales and video surveillance evidence.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions for aggravated assault and shoplifting.
• Appellee: The State contended that the evidence, including testimony and video surveillance, was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for aggravated assault and shoplifting.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions for aggravated assault and shoplifting.

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, with MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge, and TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring, found the evidence presented at trial sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions. The Court outlined the necessary elements for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and shoplifting, noting that the testimony of Phil Gonzales and the video surveillance met these requirements. Despite the Defendant's claim of intoxication, the Court held that contrary evidence supporting acquittal does not provide a basis for reversal, as the jury is free to reject the Defendant’s version of the facts (paras 2-7).