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 driving a 2006 Polaris All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) on a public road when he crashed into a telephone pole at 6:30 a.m., injuring his passenger. After the crash, the Defendant left the scene and was later found by a police officer in a nearby house. The officer determined that the Defendant had been drinking since 9:00 p.m. the previous night. After failing field sobriety tests and submitting breath samples that showed blood alcohol levels of 0.17 and 0.18, the Defendant was arrested and charged with six violations of the Motor Vehicle Code, including aggravated DWI (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that he should be sentenced under the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Act (OHMVA) penalty scheme, which includes a comprehensive penalty scheme for violations, including a catch-all penalty provision for undefined violations that would result in a $10 fine for his offense (paras 4, 6).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the Legislature intended for the DWI statute to control in instances of driving an off-highway motor vehicle while intoxicated, regardless of whether an injury occurred, and thus supported the sentence imposed by the district court (paras 5, 10-11, 13).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court was correct in imposing the penalty for Defendant’s offense of driving an off-road vehicle while intoxicated under the DWI statute, or should the court have utilized the penalty assessment misdemeanor scheme set out in the OHMVA (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence imposed by the district court, holding that the Legislature intended for the DWI statute to control in this instance (para 1).

Reasons

• CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge (with CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, and J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring): The court reasoned that the OHMVA's penalty scheme does not apply to the Defendant's case because the violation resulted in an injury, which is explicitly excluded from being considered a "penalty assessment misdemeanor" under the OHMVA. Furthermore, the court found that the Legislature intended for the DWI statute to apply to offenses of driving an off-highway motor vehicle while intoxicated, as indicated by the specific reference to the DWI statute within the OHMVA and the broader legislative context of enhancing penalties for DWI offenses. The court also noted that the DWI statute's broad wording encompasses any person driving a vehicle under the influence within the state, which includes the Defendant's operation of an ATV on a public road. Therefore, the court concluded that the Legislature intended the DWI statute's penalties to apply to the Defendant's offense (paras 5-15).