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 pursuant to a conditional plea for multiple offenses including felony DWI (fourth offense), driving while license suspended or revoked, no proof of insurance, speeding, and failure to yield. The Defendant's appeal centers on challenging the district court's denial of his motion to suppress blood test results, arguing the search warrant was deficient.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of his blood test, claiming the search warrant was deficient because it failed to establish that the blood would produce material evidence for a felony prosecution.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress the results of his blood test on the grounds that the search warrant was deficient.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny the Defendant's motion to suppress the blood test results.

Reasons

• Per MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, J. (CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, and JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, concurring):
  The Court found the Defendant's arguments regarding the alleged deficiencies of the search warrant unconvincing. The affidavit for the search warrant indicated the Defendant had three or more prior DWI arrests, which provided sufficient probable cause to believe the Defendant could be prosecuted for a felony DWI due to this being potentially his fourth offense. The Court noted that while the affidavit did not explicitly state the blood test was for a felony DWI prosecution, the reference to three prior DWI arrests and the current arrest for a fourth DWI implicitly supported the affidavit's basis. Additionally, the Court addressed the Defendant's argument regarding insufficient evidence of his three prior DWI convictions by stating it was not adequately preserved for appeal. The Defendant had stipulated to having three prior DWI convictions, and the State had met its prima facie burden to show the prior convictions. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in their notice and the memorandum opinion.