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 sentenced to a 364-day term of imprisonment for battery of a household member and a suspended 364-day consecutive sentence for criminal damage to the property of a household member. The Defendant filed a motion to reduce his sentence, which led to an amended judgment and sentence. The amendment included changes to the supervision of the Defendant's probation and allowed contact between the Defendant and the Victim, contingent on the Defendant's completion of anger management or domestic violence treatment sessions (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court: The original judgment and sentence imposed a 364-day term of imprisonment for battery and a suspended 364-day sentence for criminal damage (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: The Defendant argued that the district court erred by amending the supervision of his probation to be overseen by the Adult Probation and Parole Office (APPO) instead of the Misdemeanor Compliance Program (MCP), asserting that this change effectively increased his sentence, which is not authorized under Rule 5-801 (para 3).
- Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in amending the supervision of the Defendant's probation, thereby increasing the sentence in response to a Rule 5-801 motion (para 3).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's amended judgment and sentence (para 7).
Reasons
Per Duffy J. (Henderson and Wray JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the amended judgment and sentence did not increase the duration of the Defendant's original sentence but merely changed the manner of probation supervision. The Court noted that the Defendant failed to demonstrate how the differences between APPO and MCP supervision constituted an increased sentence rather than a modification of a probation condition. The Court emphasized that the Probation and Parole Act allows for the modification of probation conditions and concluded that the Defendant did not meet the burden of showing that the district court erred in its decision (paras 5-6).