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 conditional plea of receiving stolen property. He argued that his consent to search his vehicle was coerced by the presence of three officers who repeatedly asked to search his vehicle despite his initial lack of consent, before he finally acquiesced (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that consent to search his vehicle was coerced due to the intimidating presence of three officers who persistently requested to search despite initial non-consent (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's consent to search his vehicle was coerced by law enforcement officers, thereby violating his rights.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction (para 5).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Chief Judge LINDA M. VANZI, Judge JONATHAN B. SUTIN, and Judge STEPHEN G. FRENCH, considered the Defendant's memorandum in opposition but remained unpersuaded to alter their proposed disposition affirming the conviction. The Court noted that the Defendant failed to point out specific errors in fact or law in their notice of proposed disposition as required, instead re-describing facts and proceedings already considered. The Court reiterated its reliance on the standard of reviewing whether the trial court correctly applied the law to the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, and emphasized that their role is not to reweigh evidence but to defer to the district court's credibility assessments and conflict resolutions in witness testimony. The Court also referenced their analysis of similar facts in State v. Pierce within the context of this case, further supporting their decision to affirm the conviction (paras 2-5).