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 sentenced as a five-time driving while intoxicated (DWI) offender. The State sought to enhance the Defendant's sentence based on prior convictions. However, the evidence presented to establish the Defendant's identity for two of the prior convictions was challenged due to its insufficiency, specifically an inadmissible printout from an unidentified source (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Curry County, Drew D. Tatum, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence as a five-time DWI offender due to insufficient evidence linking him to two of the prior convictions, specifically criticizing the use of an inadmissible printout from an unidentified source as the only piece of evidence containing specific identifiers (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Filed a notice of its intent not to file a memorandum in opposition to the court's notice of proposed disposition, effectively not contesting the Defendant's argument (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in enhancing the Defendant's sentence as a five-time DWI offender based on insufficient evidence to establish the Defendant's identity for two of the prior convictions.

Disposition

• The sentence imposed by the district court was reversed, and the case was remanded for sentencing consistent with the Court of Appeals' notice of proposed disposition (para 2).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge, with concurrence from M. MONICA ZAMORA, Chief Judge, and JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge: The decision to reverse the sentence was based on the insufficiency of evidence presented by the State to link the Defendant to two of the prior DWI convictions. Specifically, the Court found the use of an inadmissible printout from an unidentified source as the sole piece of evidence containing specific identifiers to be inadequate. The State's decision not to oppose the proposed disposition further influenced the Court's decision to reverse and remand for sentencing consistent with its notice of proposed disposition (paras 1-2).