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 by a jury of one count of resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer (resisting) (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Curry County, Fred T. Van Soelen District Judge, judgment and order partially suspending sentence following a jury trial conviction for resisting an officer (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that his right to a speedy trial was violated (para 3).
• Appellee: The State, through its counsel, opposed the Defendant's appeal but specific arguments are not detailed in the decision.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and order partially suspending sentence (para 5).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge, with James J. Wechsler and Roderick T. Kennedy, Judges, concurring:
  The Court issued a calendar notice proposing summary affirmance, which the Defendant opposed. However, the Defendant's opposition did not present new information or specific errors in fact or law regarding the proposed disposition. The Court reminded counsel of the importance of directly addressing the proposed disposition and refraining from unnecessary repetition of previously presented material (para 2).
  Upon reviewing the Defendant's sole issue on appeal, the Court analyzed the four speedy trial factors from Barker v. Wingo. It found that while the length of delay favored the Defendant and the reasons for delay and assertion of speedy trial rights slightly favored the Defendant, there was no demonstration of actual prejudice. Consequently, the Court was not convinced that the Defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated, aligning with precedent that absence of demonstrated prejudice, especially when other factors do not heavily favor the defendant, does not constitute a violation of the right to a speedy trial (paras 3-4).
  The Defendant's failure to point out specific errors in the Court's analysis or to address the proposed disposition in his memorandum in opposition led the Court to conclude that the Defendant did not meet his burden on appeal. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its notice of proposed disposition and the additional reasons provided in the memorandum opinion (para 5).