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 case involves the Defendant, who entered a hotel room and sexually assaulted his friend's pregnant girlfriend. The incident led to the Defendant being convicted of two counts of criminal sexual penetration (CSP) under the same statute. The victim reported that the assault was brief, lasting less than two minutes, and involved both cunnilingus and penile penetration (paras 2, 6-7).
Procedural History
- District Court: Denied habeas relief after the Defendant was convicted of multiple offenses, including two counts of CSP (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioner: Argued that the two CSP convictions violated double jeopardy, claimed prejudice from pre-indictment delay, alleged denial of counsel of choice, cited discovery violations, and contested the denial of an evidentiary hearing (paras 3, 9, 12, 14, 15).
- Respondents: Contended that the Defendant failed to meet the burden of proving prejudice from pre-indictment delay, argued that the issue of counsel of choice was previously decided, and maintained that the discovery violations claim was not properly before the court (paras 10, 12-14).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant's two CSP convictions violate double jeopardy.
- Was the Defendant prejudiced by pre-indictment delay?
- Did the district court deny the Defendant's right to counsel of choice?
- Were there any discovery violations by the State?
- Did the habeas court err in denying the petition without an evidentiary hearing?
Disposition
- One of the Defendant's CSP convictions was vacated on double jeopardy grounds.
- Relief was denied on all other grounds (para 18).
Reasons
Per Vargas J. (Thomson C.J., Vigil, Bacon, and Zamora JJ. concurring):
The court found that the two CSP convictions violated double jeopardy because the statute did not clearly define the unit of prosecution, and the factors considered indicated a single offense (paras 3-7). The court held that the Defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from pre-indictment delay, as he did not establish that the delay worked a tactical disadvantage or that the State's reason for the delay was pretextual (paras 9-11). The issue of counsel of choice was not properly before the court, as it was previously decided on the merits in the Defendant's direct appeal (paras 12-13). The court did not address the alleged discovery violations due to the Defendant's failure to preserve the issue and lack of clarity in his arguments (para 14). Finally, the court concluded that an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary because the record provided sufficient facts for a decision, and the Defendant conceded that the record spoke for itself (paras 15-17).