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 appealed the district court's denial of his second motion to change the conditions of his probation. He had previously obtained the relief he sought through a stipulation to change the plea agreement but also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and cumulative error. Additionally, the Defendant sought to challenge his sentence, particularly the extension of his probationary term by two years, arguing that time served on parole should be credited towards the period of probation, contrary to the plea agreement and law.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court wrongfully extended his probationary term by failing to recognize that time served on parole should be credited as time served on the period of probation, which was contrary to the plea agreement and to law. Also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and cumulative error.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the length of the Defendant's probation was consistent with the plea agreement, which ordered the Defendant's term of probation in separate cases to run consecutively. The State acknowledged a procedural error where it moved to revoke the Defendant's probation while he was still on parole.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's second motion to change conditions of probation.
• Whether the district court wrongfully extended the Defendant's probationary term by not crediting time served on parole towards the period of probation.
• Whether the Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and cumulative error were valid.

Disposition

• The district court's order denying the Defendant's second motion to change conditions of probation was affirmed.
• The motion to amend the docketing statement to add a challenge to the sentence was denied.

Reasons

• Per VANZI, J., with MEDINA, J., and IVES, J., concurring:
  The court affirmed the district court's order for the reasons discussed in their notice, as the Defendant did not specifically point out errors of law or fact in his response to the court's notice proposing to affirm the district court's decision.
  The court limited its analysis to the assertions made in the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement, finding that the Defendant's probation length was consistent with the plea agreement and that parole in one case is not credited as time served in a separate case and sentence.
  The court noted that the Defendant did not sufficiently develop the facts in district court to raise the claims he makes on appeal, which appear to require development in habeas proceedings and a determination by the district court.
  The court concluded that the Defendant must first properly and fully present the matter to the district court and seek appeal in the appropriate court, as he has not demonstrated that the issue he seeks to add is properly before the court, was properly developed and preserved, or may be raised for the first time on appeal, and is viable.