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 under the influence of liquor (DWI) (impaired) (3rd offense). The conviction was based on the State's evidence, which the Defendant challenged, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was actually driving the vehicle.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State's evidence was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was actually driving the vehicle.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI (impaired) (3rd offense).

Legal Issues

• Whether the State's evidence was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was actually driving the vehicle.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for DWI (impaired) (3rd offense).

Reasons

• Per IVES, J., with ATTREP, J., and DUFFY, J., concurring: The Court considered the Defendant's memorandum in opposition to the notice of proposed summary disposition and found it unpersuasive. The Defendant failed to cite any new authority or evidence that could alter the Court's initial proposed disposition. The Court relied on precedent that the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law and that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings of the district court. The Court found that sufficient evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, supported the Defendant's conviction, affirming the decision of the lower court (paras 1-2).