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 of multiple offenses, including burglary. The convictions stemmed from evidence obtained through a search warrant and observations made by deputies at the Defendant's house. Deputies observed apparently stolen property in plain view in the Defendant's yard, including an ATV, a battery charger, and a large water tank, which supported the issuance of a search warrant. The Defendant challenged the validity of the search warrant and the sufficiency of the evidence for the burglary conviction, particularly arguing that there was no direct evidence of him entering a shed from which property was stolen.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the search warrant was invalid due to the potential unreliability of a source and that deputies lacked probable cause to be at his house. Also contended that a detective entered his house before securing a warrant, tainting the warrant's validity. Challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the burglary conviction, asserting that only one witness provided direct evidence of who entered the shed and that there was no direct testimony of him being in the shed.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the deputies' presence at the Defendant's house was justified as they were looking for a suspect and evidence. Argued that the property observed in plain view in the Defendant's yard was sufficient to support the search warrant. Contended that substantial evidence, including circumstantial evidence, supported the Defendant's burglary conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the search warrant was valid.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the burglary conviction.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of the Defendant for multiple offenses, including burglary.

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with Jennifer L. Attrep and Megan P. Duffy concurring, the court found:
  The Defendant abandoned the argument regarding the unreliability of a source for the search warrant by not contesting it in his memorandum in opposition to summary affirmance (para 2).
  The deputies had probable cause to be at the Defendant's house, and the presence of apparently stolen property in plain view in the Defendant's yard justified the search warrant. The validity of the warrant did not depend on whether a detective entered the Defendant's house before the warrant was issued (para 3).
  Although there was no direct evidence of the Defendant entering the shed, the district court and the jury could rely on reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence presented at trial to support the burglary conviction. The court noted that the Defendant's argument did not address any circumstantial evidence that could support a finding of his entry into the shed (paras 4-6).
  The Defendant's failure to address the third issue raised in his docketing statement led the court to deem that issue abandoned (para 9).