State v Allgood

Allgood appealed his sex crimes convictions arguing the state used false testimony and his counsel was ineffective. The panel affirmed. It held the false testimony claim failed as the victim was asked what a text from Allgood was about not what it said and there were differing versions of the text from the only people who saw it and thus no way to determine which was correct. It rejected the ineffective assistance claim as preventing evidence about victim’s relationship with her boyfriend kept Allgood’s basis for jealousy from the jury which would have strengthened the case against him and Allgood testified that he was concerned about the relationship without admitting the sex abuse and rape; not objecting to hearsay evidence about a police offers observations during a traffic stop was reasonable as counsel could have been motivated by the desire to prevent the officer form testifying why he felt Allgood and victim were found in compromising situation; and Allgood failed to demonstrate any prejudice.

Gray v State

Gray appealed summary judgment to the state on his petition for post-conviction relief. The panel affirmed. The panel held that there was no error in the district court’s finding that defense counsel obtained mental health records and hired a mitigation expert which was a reasonable investigation under the circumstances; no error in concluding neither insanity defense nor the mitigation of extreme emotional distress were available as Gray knew he was killing a human being, had consumed a large quantity of drugs and alcohol and killing his girlfriend for walking towards him undressed was not a reasonable response; and there was no prejudice here as Gray had confessed, the crime was gruesome as it would be irrational to risk a deaths entice rather than accepted the pela agreement negotiated by trail counsel.

In the Interests of A.C. (K.C. v State)

K.C. appealed the juvenile court finding that she failed to protect A.C. from her sex offender boyfriend. The panel affirmed holding the juvenile court’s finding was supported by evidence that K.C. and A.C. moved in with boyfriend, K.C. allowed boyfriend to shower with A.C. and that boyfriend molested A.C.

State v Beagles

Beagles appealed his sentence arguing he should not have received jail time. The panela affirmed holding the district court considered all appropriate factors and permissibly concluded that brazen nature of the computer hacking and the likelihood Beagles would reoffended given his lack of remorse and belief he can hack his ex-wife when he wants outweighed Beagle’s mental health and substance abuse issues.