State v Reyos

Reyos appealed his aggravated robbery convictions and his enhanced sentence. The panel affirmed. It held there was no ineffective assistance of counsel for not attacking two eyewitness identifications because the witnesses saw the robber in question for two or three minutes form less than five feet away without obstruction, the robber was the object of attention during the robbery, the eyewitnesses ability to perceive was not affected by the alcohol consumed during the evening or the stress of being robbed, nether witness saw Reyos’ picture in the newspapers or on television until after the photo arrays here, gave descriptions generally consist with Reyos’ appearance, and the lighting in the alleyway allowed the eyewitnesses to observe the robber and they paid attention to the two men in the alleyway during the whole interaction and faced with this counsel made the strategic decision not to challenge the identifications but to suggest an alternative basis for them namely Reyos’ pictures in the media and engaging in cross examination. It held there was no plain error in submitting the case to the jury as the eyewitness testimony was sufficient to prove the case, objection would have been futile and thus there was no ineffective assistance and the gang enhancement was also proven as two male robbers and a female driver participated in the robbery which triggered the enhancement.

Hahn v Hahn

Father appealed the modification of the parties divorce decree as to child custody and child support and awarding mother attorney fees. The panel affirmed. It held father was not entitled to a jury trial as the issues were equitable in nature. It held the imputation of income was proper as father did not participate in discovery and the imputed income was based on father’s employment history. It held that father’s other arguments were inadequately briefed. It awarded mother attorney fees on the attorney fee issue only and remanded for calculation.

Fehr v Stockton

Fehr appealed the dismal of his breach of contract claim and an attorney award to Stockton. The panel reversed, vacated the fee award and remanded. It held the complaint was not time barred in its entirety as it was brought within four years of Fehr’s last charge for services, but noted some of the claim may be barred if the claims are for charges more than four years before filing. It held the statue of frauds did not bar the complaint because the contract at issue was for legal services which could be performed within a year if Stockton fired Fehr within a year of the contract starting. It vacated the attorney fee award as it was based on the district court’s finding of bad faith which is not tenable given the reversal here. Orme added a concurrence arguing eh district court should not read the opinion to preclude a new finding of bad faith on remand at an appropriate point in the litigation.