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

• A domestic dispute between the Defendant and the mother of his child led to a restraining order and an arrest warrant against the Defendant. A plan was devised with a deputy to serve the warrant while the Defendant was at the mother's home. Upon attempting to serve the warrant, the Defendant assaulted the deputy, attempted to flee, and after a prolonged resistance involving a SWAT team, was apprehended.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the two convictions for battery upon a peace officer and the conviction for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer alongside one of the battery convictions violated double jeopardy. Also claimed a jury instruction error for one battery count and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence.
• Appellee: Contended that the Defendant's acts of battery were distinguishable and separated by an intervening event, justifying multiple punishments. Argued that the convictions did not violate double jeopardy and that the evidence was sufficient for conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's two convictions for battery upon a peace officer violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.
• Whether the Defendant's convictions for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer and battery upon a peace officer violate double jeopardy.
• Whether there was a jury instruction error regarding one count of battery upon a peace officer.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions.

Disposition

• The court vacated the Defendant's second conviction for battery upon a peace officer due to a violation of double jeopardy but affirmed the remaining convictions.

Reasons

• The court, with Judge Jennifer L. Attrep authoring and Judges M. Monica Zamora and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, found that the two convictions for battery upon a peace officer were not sufficiently distinct to justify multiple punishments, thus violating double jeopardy (paras 5-13). However, it held that the convictions for battery upon a peace officer and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer did not violate double jeopardy as they were intended to address different societal harms and were not necessarily violated together (paras 14-20). The court did not address the jury instruction error due to vacating one of the battery convictions (para 23). Lastly, the court dismissed the sufficiency of the evidence challenge due to the Defendant's failure to specify which facts were not supported by substantial evidence (para 21).