State v Ludlow

Ludlow appealed the restitution order in her theft case. The panel reversed and remanded. It held that because the items stolen were mostly electronics with a market value, it was error to use the purchase price to set the restitution amount and a new hearing was necessary.

State v Do

Do appealed his prison sentence arguing he should have received probation. The panel affirmed. It held the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a prison sentence because it rationally concluded that Do’s previous successful terms of probation had not deterred further criminality and that Do’s drug addiction supported a prison term instead of probation.

Anderson v Eyre

Anderson sued Frye and several other judges and court personnel for actions taken during cases filed by Anderson in district and justice court. The district court granted summary judgment to Frye and the panel summarily affirmed holding Anderson failed to serve a notice of claim against a government entity within the one year time limit and any claim not barred by that failure was barred by judicial immunity.

State v Gomez

Gomez appealed his convictions for possessing forged writings arguing the district court should have charged the jury on lesser included offense of unlawful possession of identity documents and that his convictions should have been reduced to misdemeanors. The panel affirmed. It held there was no basis for the lesser included charge as the undisputed evidence proved Gomez used the documentation to obtain a job and thus there was a proven intent to deceive. It affirmed on the reduction argument holding the district court considered all the relevant factors and made the authorized decision to keep the convictions felonies.

State v Pelton

Pelton appealed his DUI sentence arguing violation of his speedy trial rights. It held that the delay in sentencing was due to Pelton failing to appear at the original sentencing and being sent to prison in Arizona and Pelton also failed to raise his rights in a timely manner. The court also held there was no prejudice in not receiving a concurrent sentence at the original hearing as a consecutive sentence was highly likely as Pelton had 10 DUI and failed to stay off alcohol despite several stints in treatment.