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 convicted of aggravated burglary (deadly weapon, accessory); robbery; larceny of a firearm (accessory); and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The appeal challenges these convictions based on claims of trial delay prejudice and insufficient evidence to support the convictions.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) he suffered prejudice as a result of the trial delay; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support any of the convictions.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The specific arguments of the Plaintiff-Appellee are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant suffered prejudice as a result of the trial delay.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions for aggravated burglary (deadly weapon, accessory); robbery; larceny of a firearm (accessory); and conspiracy to commit armed robbery.

Reasons

• Per VANZI, J. (ATTREP, J. and IVES, J. concurring):
  The Court considered the Defendant's memorandum in opposition but remained unpersuaded by the arguments presented. The Defendant's claims of trial delay prejudice and insufficient evidence were not supported by new facts, law, or arguments that could lead the Court to reconsider its proposed disposition. The Court referenced previous case law emphasizing the burden on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law. The repetition of earlier arguments without presenting new errors did not fulfill this requirement. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Defendant's convictions based on the reasons stated in the notice of proposed disposition and the additional considerations outlined in the memorandum opinion (paras 1-3).