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 aggravated fleeing, evading an officer, failure to display a registration plate, and having no insurance.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, Thomas J. Hynes, District Judge, February 23, 2011.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the convictions for evading a police officer and aggravated fleeing violated the right to be free from double jeopardy.
• Appellee: Submitted a memorandum in support of the court's proposed decision to affirm the convictions for aggravated fleeing, failure to display registration plate, and no insurance, but to reverse the conviction for evading an officer due to double jeopardy concerns.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's convictions for evading a police officer and aggravated fleeing violated the Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy.

Disposition

• Affirmed the Defendant’s convictions for aggravated fleeing, failure to display registration plate, and no insurance.
• Reversed the Defendant’s conviction for evading an officer.
• Remanded the case to the district court for entry of an amended judgment and sentence.

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, J. (Cynthia A. Fry, J., and Linda M. Vanzi, J., concurring): The court initially proposed to affirm all convictions but, upon further consideration of the double jeopardy issue raised in the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement, decided to reverse the conviction for evading an officer. The reversal was based on the principle of double jeopardy, which protects against multiple punishments for the same offense. The court concluded that the convictions for evading a police officer and aggravated fleeing constituted double jeopardy, leading to the reversal of the evading an officer conviction.