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, Aaron Morrisette, entered into a plea agreement, resulting in his conviction on multiple felony charges, including armed robbery, aggravated battery against a household member with a deadly weapon, assault with intent to commit a violent felony against a household member, unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, and tampering with evidence. Following the plea, the Defendant was given the maximum sentence for each crime, enhanced by an eight-year habitual offender enhancement for each crime, totaling 59 years and 6 months of incarceration without any time deferred or suspended (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Curry County, Matthew E. Chandler, District Judge, December 27, 2017: The Defendant was convicted pursuant to a plea agreement and sentenced to a total of 59 years and 6 months of incarceration, including habitual offender enhancements.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. He also maintained that his enhanced sentence was illegal because each conviction was enhanced by eight years (paras 2, 5, 8).
• Appellee (State): Argued in favor of the legality of the sentence, including the application of habitual offender enhancements to each of the Defendant's convictions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment (para 2).
• Whether the Defendant's enhanced sentence was illegal because each conviction was enhanced by eight years (para 5).
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel (para 8).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence of the District Court, rejecting the Defendant's claims regarding cruel and unusual punishment, the legality of the sentence enhancements, and ineffective assistance of counsel (para 9).

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, J. (J. Miles Hanisee, J., and Emil J. Kiehne, J., concurring):
  On Cruel and Unusual Punishment: The Court concluded that the Defendant waived his right to challenge the constitutionality of his sentence on appeal by entering an unconditional plea of guilty. The Court also found that the Defendant was sentenced in accordance with the law, thus affirming the sentence (paras 2-4).
  On Enhanced Sentence Legality: The Court held that the district court acted in accordance with the law by enhancing each of the Defendant’s five convictions by eight years, as authorized by the habitual offender enhancement statute. The Defendant's arguments against this were not persuasive (paras 5-7).
  On Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The Court suggested that the Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was more appropriately addressed through habeas proceedings. The Court noted that the record did not support the Defendant's assertions that counsel promised a 19-year sentence, thus not establishing a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel (para 8).