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 DWI (Driving While Intoxicated). The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, including the Defendant being found awake in the driver's seat with the key in the ignition, hands on the steering wheel, seatbelt buckled, and the vehicle positioned perpendicularly to the parking spaces.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that there was insufficient evidence to establish the requisite intent to drive, focusing on the lack of evidence to prove actual control over the vehicle with the intent to drive.
• Appellee (State): Presented evidence suggesting the Defendant's intent to drive, including the position of the key in the ignition, the Defendant's position in the driver's seat with hands on the steering wheel and seatbelt fastened, and the orientation of the vehicle.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI, specifically regarding the requisite intent to drive.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for DWI.

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J., with Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge, and James J. Wechsler, Judge concurring:
  The court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's memorandum in opposition, which challenged the sufficiency of the evidence regarding intent to drive. The court distinguished the present case from State v. Sims, noting that de novo review was not warranted as the appeal did not present questions of statutory interpretation or application of legal precedent (para 4). Instead, the court focused on the "totality of the circumstances" as endorsed in Sims, considering factors such as the key's position in the ignition, the Defendant's position in the driver's seat, and the vehicle's orientation (para 5). The court found that this evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, supported a reasonable inference of intent to drive. The court also noted that it does not reweigh evidence or draw alternative inferences from the evidence presented at trial. The fact finder's rejection of the Defendant's theory was within their discretion, and the court's review confirmed that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction (paras 5-6).