AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 convicted of several charges, including unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, possession of burglary tools, resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer, failure to stop or yield at an intersection, and driving while license suspended. The appeal focuses on challenging the convictions for possession of burglary tools and driving while license suspended, among other issues raised in the docketing statement.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Challenged the convictions for possession of burglary tools and driving while license suspended on new grounds, sought to add new issues to the appeal, and continued to pursue the remaining issues raised in the docketing statement (para 1).
• Appellee: Did not file a memorandum in opposition to the second calendar notice, effectively accepting the proposed disposition (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for possession of burglary tools and driving while license suspended.

Disposition

• The convictions for possession of burglary tools and driving while license suspended were reversed for insufficient evidence. The court affirmed the remaining convictions and remanded for the district court to vacate the reversed convictions and to resentence the Defendant accordingly (para 4).

Reasons

• The decision was delivered by Judge Zachary A. Ives, with Judges Jennifer L. Attrep and Shammara H. Henderson concurring. The appellate court initially proposed to affirm the Defendant's convictions but, upon review of the Defendant's memorandum in opposition, was persuaded that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions for possession of burglary tools and driving while license suspended. The Defendant's motion to add new issues was denied, and the court proposed to affirm the remaining issues for the reasons stated in the first calendar notice. The Defendant chose not to file a second memorandum in opposition, relying instead on the arguments contained in his first memorandum. The State also did not file a memorandum in opposition to the second calendar notice. Given the lack of new arguments against the proposed analysis in the second calendar notice, the appellate court reversed the convictions for possession of burglary tools and driving while license suspended due to insufficient evidence and affirmed the remaining convictions (paras 1-4).