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 while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The evidence presented at the jury trial included testimony from the arresting officer, a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) card showing a level of .07, and a dash-cam video of the Defendant performing field sobriety tests before his arrest (DS 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for driving while under the influence (para 1-2).
• Appellee: The State, through its calendar notice, proposed to affirm the conviction, arguing that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to determine that the Defendant was driving while impaired (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (para 3).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (J. Miles Hanisee, J., and Stephen G. French, J., concurring): The Court remained unpersuaded by the Defendant's general assertion that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. It referenced State v. Mondragon, which explains that merely repeating earlier arguments does not fulfill a party's burden to specifically point out errors of law or fact in a notice of proposed summary disposition. The Court, therefore, affirmed the conviction based on the reasons stated in its notice of proposed disposition, indicating that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude that the Defendant was driving while impaired (paras 1-2).