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 of DWI pursuant to a conditional plea agreement. The conviction followed a motion to dismiss based on a violation of the six-month rule, which was denied by the district court. The Defendant's motion to exclude sought the suppression of all evidence obtained as a result of his traffic stop.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based on a violation of the six-month rule. Asserted that the magistrate court could have held jury selection as scheduled, scheduled the trial for a later date within the same month, and heard the Defendant's motions in the interim, allowing the State sufficient time to prepare a response (paras 3-4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss based on a violation of the six-month rule.
• Whether the district court erred in refusing the Defendant's invitation to deny the State its right to appeal the court’s rulings on the Defendant's motions.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the DWI conviction of the Defendant.

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Linda M. Vanzi, Chief Judge, and M. Monica Zamora, Judge, concurring):
  The Court acknowledged the Defendant's argument regarding the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss based on the six-month rule but remained unpersuaded after considering the second memorandum in opposition (para 1-3).
  The Court recognized its previous error in construing the Defendant’s memorandum as raising an argument not preserved below and corrected its stance to accept assertions as to what arguments were preserved as true at this stage (para 3).
  The Court held that under double jeopardy principles, the State is barred from appealing a defendant's acquittal by the trial court, no matter the erroneous nature of the trial court’s ruling. Since the Defendant's motion to exclude sought the suppression of all evidence from his traffic stop, an erroneous ruling in the Defendant's favor would have resolved all factual elements of his DWI charge, thereby denying the State the right to appeal. The Court found that the need for an extension was caused by the Defendant, and thus, the State could not have protected against the loss of its right to appeal through ordinary experience or prudence (paras 4-5).
  The Court found no new arguments in the remaining issues on appeal presented in the second memorandum in opposition and affirmed the conviction based on the reasons stated above and in their notices of proposed summary disposition (paras 5-6).