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 on probation when he did not contest allegations of violating the terms of his probation. Subsequently, the district court revoked his probation and re-sentenced him.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the district court relied on misinformation during sentencing and claimed he was denied the opportunity to correct this error. Specifically, he referred to a comment made by the judge that was not part of the official record (para 4).
• Appellee: The State, presumably, defended the district court's decision to revoke probation and the sentence imposed, although specific arguments from the State are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in re-sentencing the Defendant after he did not contest violating probation.
• Whether the district court relied on misinformation in sentencing the Defendant and if he was denied the opportunity to correct this error.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order revoking the Defendant's probation and the re-sentencing (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Linda M. Vanzi, with Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and Cynthia A. Fry concurring, held that sentences are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. The Court found no abuse of discretion as the sentence imposed was authorized by law (para 2). The Defendant abandoned one of his issues on appeal, which the Court did not further address except to note that summary affirmance was appropriate based on their analysis (para 3). Regarding the Defendant's claim that the district court relied on misinformation, the Court noted that the alleged comment by the judge was not part of the record and thus not reviewable on appeal. Additionally, the Defendant did not include any alleged correction in his motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the district court. Based on these findings, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence (para 4).