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 by the district court following a plea of no contest for failing to register her vehicle, driving without a license or insurance, and speeding.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that she has a constitutional right to travel without a license or governmental regulation, contending this right is a common law and natural right protected by the United States Constitution. Additionally, she claimed that being required to have a driver's license forces her into a contract, violating constitutional principles against ex post facto laws. She also raised concerns about the subordination of constitutional rights to statutory law and argued she was improperly denied the right to representation.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether operating a motor vehicle is a natural right or a privilege subject to regulation.
• Whether requiring a driver's license violates constitutional principles prohibiting ex post facto laws.
• Whether the Defendant was improperly denied the right to representation.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence.

Reasons

• VANZI, Judge (CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, and TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring): The court found that operating a motor vehicle is not a natural or unrestrained right but a privilege that is subject to reasonable regulations in the interest of public safety and general welfare. The court referenced previous rulings to support the state's authority to regulate driving, emphasizing that driving is a privilege, not a right. Regarding the Defendant's claim about the violation of constitutional rights through the requirement of a driver's license, the court was not persuaded, noting that issues not preserved at the district court level are not viable for appeal. The court also addressed the Defendant's complaint about being denied the right to representation, stating that the Defendant did not demonstrate that she preserved this issue for appeal or that it was included in the plea agreement, which limits the scope of appealable issues following a guilty plea.