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 one count of unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. The conviction was based on evidence presented at trial, which the Defendant later challenged as insufficient for supporting his conviction.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Chaves County, Steven L. Bell, District Judge, May 20, 2014: Conviction for one count of unlawful taking of a motor vehicle.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, referencing State v. Franklin and State v. Boyer to support his claim.
• Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for one count of unlawful taking of a motor vehicle.

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with James J. Wechsler and Roderick T. Kennedy concurring: The Court considered the Defendant's arguments against the sufficiency of evidence supporting his conviction and found them unpersuasive. The Defendant's memorandum in opposition did not provide new facts or legal authority that had not already been considered by the Court. The decision to affirm was based on the Defendant's failure to clearly point out errors in fact or law that would warrant a reversal of the proposed summary disposition (paras 1-3).