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 residential burglary, stalking, and interference with communications after a series of incidents involving unauthorized entries into the victim's home, threats, and destruction of property. The defendant's actions escalated over time, despite protective measures taken by the victim, culminating in an event where the defendant entered the victim's home with a weapon, leading to the victim shooting the defendant in self-defense.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in summarily denying the motion to dismiss for violation of the right to a speedy trial due to untimeliness; claimed ineffective assistance of counsel due to late filing of the speedy trial motion; contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for residential burglary.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the defendant did not preserve the claim regarding the summary denial of the motion to dismiss for a speedy trial violation and waived it by refusing the district court's offer to continue the trial; argued that the defendant has not established a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel; maintained that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for residential burglary.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in summarily denying the defendant's motion to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial based on untimeliness.
• Whether the late filing of the defendant's speedy trial motion by defense counsel constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for residential burglary.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the conviction, finding against the defendant on all issues raised.

Reasons

• The court found that the defendant failed to preserve the argument that the district court lacked authority to summarily deny his motion to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial (paras 4-8). The court also declined to review the merits of the speedy trial motion due to inadequate development of facts and findings by the district court (para 9). Regarding the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court determined that the defendant did not establish a prima facie case because the record did not demonstrate that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different but for counsel's errors (paras 10-12). Lastly, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the defendant entered the victim's home with the intent to commit a felony, based on the defendant's actions and threats leading up to and on the day of the incident (paras 13-22).