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 driving while intoxicated.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for driving while intoxicated (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for driving while intoxicated.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals summarily affirmed the Defendant's conviction for driving while intoxicated.

Reasons

• J. Miles Hanisee, Chief Judge, with Kristina Bogardus, Judge, and Megan P. Duffy, Judge, concurring: The Court considered the Defendant's memorandum in opposition but found no new facts, law, or arguments that would persuade them to alter their proposed disposition of affirming the conviction. The Court referenced previous case law stating the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law, which the Defendant failed to do by merely repeating earlier arguments. Therefore, the Court affirmed the Defendant's conviction based on the reasons stated in their notice of proposed disposition and the memorandum opinion (paras 1-3).