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 a controlled substance. Following the convictions, the district court imposed two seventy-five dollar crime victim reparations fees, one for each felony conviction, despite the sentences being run concurrently.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by imposing two separate seventy-five dollar crime victim reparations fees for his felony convictions since the sentences were run concurrently. The Defendant also contended that he was denied discovery of text messages allegedly deleted by law enforcement and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions (paras 2, 4, 6).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The specific arguments of the Plaintiff-Appellee are not detailed in the decision. However, it can be inferred that the Plaintiff-Appellee argued in favor of upholding the district court's decisions regarding the imposition of the crime victim reparations fees, the handling of the discovery issue, and the sufficiency of the evidence (paras 2, 4, 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by imposing two separate seventy-five dollar crime victim reparations fees for the Defendant's felony convictions despite the sentences being run concurrently.
• Whether the Defendant was denied discovery of text messages that were allegedly deleted by law enforcement.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for trafficking a controlled substance.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement by the Defendant was denied.
• The convictions for trafficking a controlled substance were upheld.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Julie J. Vargas writing the opinion, concurred by Judges Megan P. Duffy and Briana H. Zamora, affirmed the district court's decisions. The Court found no merit in the Defendant's contention regarding the imposition of two separate crime victim reparations fees, citing statutory language that mandates these fees in addition to any sentence, regardless of how sentences are imposed (para 2). Regarding the discovery of text messages, the Court noted that the Defendant's claims were unsubstantiated and that the district court was at liberty to reject the factual premise that the text messages existed (para 4). The Court also emphasized its role is not to resolve factual disputes or reassess the credibility of witnesses, which is the purview of the district court (para 5). Lastly, the Court adhered to its initial assessment regarding the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Defendant's convictions without further elaboration (para 6).