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 driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. The specific circumstances leading to the conviction involved the Defendant driving on a business parking lot rather than on a public highway (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that Deputy Gonzales should not have been allowed to testify due to lack of credibility; contended that no violation of law occurred as the driving was on a business parking lot, not a public highway; and claimed the district court abused its discretion in not granting a motion for a directed verdict, arguing that moving the vehicle only a short distance did not constitute actual physical control (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether Deputy Gonzales should have been allowed to testify despite the Defendant's challenge to his credibility.
• Whether driving on a business parking lot constitutes a violation of law regarding driving under the influence.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in not granting the Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict based on the short distance the vehicle was moved (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence, thereby upholding the Defendant's conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (para 3).

Reasons

• Per Kristina Bogardus, J., concurred by Jacqueline R. Medina, J., and Jane B. Yohalem, J.: The Court considered the Defendant's memorandum in opposition but found it unpersuasive, affirming the conviction. The Defendant failed to demonstrate any error in fact or law in the Court's notice of proposed disposition. The Court's decision was based on the lack of specific errors pointed out by the Defendant regarding the proposed disposition, adhering to the principle that a party opposing summary disposition must specifically identify errors in fact and/or law (paras 1-3).