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 for DWI. The conviction was based, in part, on the Defendant's repeated admissions of having been driving. The Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, pointing to countervailing evidence such as the physical position of the driver's seat to support her claim that the verdict was unsupported by the weight of the evidence.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the Defendant's repeated admissions of driving were sufficient to support the conviction for DWI.
• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the verdict was unsupported by the weight of the evidence, highlighting the physical evidence, including the position of the driver's seat, as countervailing evidence against her driving.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Defendant was driving.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for DWI.

Reasons

• Per Wechsler, J. (Garcia, J., and Zamora, J., concurring): The Court found the Defendant's admissions of driving sufficient to support the conviction, despite the Defendant's arguments to the contrary based on physical evidence and the weight of the evidence. The Court emphasized that it could not re-weigh evidence on appeal and that the factfinder was entitled to weigh inconsistencies against the Defendant's admission and the evidence suggesting she was driving. The Court remained unpersuaded by the Defendant's memorandum in opposition and affirmed the conviction based on the reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary disposition and the analysis above (paras 1-4).