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 burglary of a vehicle. He challenged his conviction on the grounds that he believed he had permission from the owner to break into the vehicle to retrieve property, claiming a mistake of fact regarding his belief that the vehicle belonged to his grandmother and that he had permission to enter it.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because he made a mistake of fact, believing he had permission to enter the vehicle which he thought belonged to his grandmother.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction of burglary of a vehicle, considering his claim of a mistake of fact regarding permission to enter the vehicle.

Disposition

• The judgment of the district court convicting the Defendant of burglary of a vehicle was affirmed.

Reasons

• J. Miles Hanisee, Chief Judge, with Kristina Bogardus, Judge, and Zachary A. Ives, Judge, concurring:
  The Court found the Defendant's argument, that he believed he had permission to enter the vehicle, insufficient to overturn the jury's verdict. The Defendant's repetition of his initial argument did not meet the burden to specifically point out errors of law or fact in the notice of proposed summary disposition (para 2). The Court emphasized that it is not their role to reweigh evidence or substitute their judgment for that of the jury (para 3). Therefore, for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary disposition and the memorandum opinion, the Court affirmed the judgment of the district court (para 4).