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, Haven Humbles, was convicted by a jury for one count of battery upon a peace officer and two counts of resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. The Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, specifically denying intentionally kicking Officer Wickens, asserting Officer Wickens was not performing his duties as a peace officer at the time, and claiming Officer Wickens acted outside his authority during the arrest. Additionally, the Defendant contended that neither Officer Wickens nor Officer White were lawfully discharging their duties when arresting him.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, specifically denying the intentional kicking of Officer Wickens, asserting Officer Wickens was not performing his duties at the time, and claiming Officer Wickens acted outside his authority. Additionally, contended that neither Officer Wickens nor Officer White were lawfully discharging their duties during his arrest (paras 2-3).
• Appellee (State): The State's arguments are not directly detailed in the provided text, but it can be inferred that the State argued in favor of the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Defendant's convictions.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for one count of battery upon a peace officer and two counts of resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges J. MILES HANISEE, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, and HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions. The Court applied the standard of reviewing evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, indulging all reasonable inferences and resolving conflicts in favor of the verdict. It emphasized that it does not reweigh evidence on appeal and that the jury is free to reject the Defendant's version of the facts. Based on the evidence presented at trial and under these principles, the Court found that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the affirmation of the Defendant's convictions (paras 3-5).