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 trafficking (by distribution) after a jury trial. The case involved an undercover officer who testified that he gave the Defendant five hundred dollars in exchange for methamphetamine. The Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, particularly highlighting the absence of video surveillance evidence of the exchange and the recovery of the cash given to him.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, specifically pointing out the lack of video surveillance showing the exchange of methamphetamine for money and the absence of recovery of the cash given to the Defendant.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for trafficking (by distribution).

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the Defendant's convictions.

Reasons

• VARGAS, Judge, with ZAMORA, Chief Judge, and DUFFY, Judge, concurring: The Court considered the Defendant's arguments against the proposed summary affirmance but remained unpersuaded, affirming the conviction. The Court reiterated that the burden was on the Defendant to clearly point out errors in fact or law, which he failed to do by merely repeating earlier arguments. The Court emphasized that it is the jury's role to resolve conflicts and determine the weight and credibility of the testimony. The absence of video surveillance evidence and the recovery of cash, while potentially supportive of the State's case, did not constitute reversible error. The direct testimony of the undercover officer about the exchange was deemed sufficient evidence to support the conviction for trafficking (paras 1-5).