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

• Two police officers and a civilian were at a Whataburger around 2:00 a.m. when they observed the Defendant and his cousin enter, order food, and leave. Shortly after, a loud noise and shattering glass from a window hit the officers. The civilian heard a gunshot. The Defendant and his cousin re-entered the restaurant, yelling incoherently, and were detained. The Defendant claimed the gun discharged accidentally while unloading it, suggesting they fabricate a story of being shot at. Surveillance and evidence indicated shots were fired from inside the Defendant's truck, with bullet casings found inside (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient for aggravated assault convictions under an attempted battery theory, contested the denial of presentence confinement credit for time spent on GPS monitoring, and claimed double jeopardy for convictions under Section 30-3-8(A) and (B) (paras 6, 10, 13).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that sufficient evidence supported the Defendant's intent to commit aggravated assault, GPS monitoring did not equate to official confinement deserving presentence credit, and the two convictions did not constitute double jeopardy as they were not unitary conduct (paras 6, 10, 13).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict the Defendant of aggravated assault on a peace officer under an attempted battery theory.
• Whether the district court erred in denying Defendant’s request for presentence confinement credit for time on GPS monitoring.
• Whether Defendant’s convictions under Section 30-3-8(A) and (B) violate double jeopardy (paras 6, 10, 13).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions on all counts (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges J. Miles Hanisee, Jacqueline R. Medina, and Megan P. Duffy, held that:
  Substantial Evidence: The jury had sufficient evidence to convict the Defendant of aggravated assault on a peace officer, including the circumstances of the shooting and the Defendant's actions and testimony indicating intent (paras 6-9).
  Presentence Confinement: The GPS monitoring and restrictions imposed on the Defendant did not amount to official confinement under the law, thus not warranting presentence confinement credit (paras 10-12).
  Double Jeopardy: The convictions for shooting at a dwelling or occupied building and shooting at or from a motor vehicle did not violate double jeopardy principles as the actions were not unitary conduct, given the evidence of two shots fired in different directions with distinct intents (paras 13-17).