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 aggravated driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs after being stopped by an officer for having no illuminated taillights. The officer observed signs of impairment, including an odor of alcohol from the vehicle, bloodshot and watery eyes, and the Defendant's admission of consuming nine beers over a twelve-hour period. The Defendant declined to perform field sobriety tests and refused to submit to a breath test at the police station (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State failed to prove impairment to the slightest degree, noting the absence of bad driving, balance, or mobility issues, and challenged the legality of the sentence, acknowledging it as legal but disputing its discretion (paras 2, 5).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that evidence of the Defendant's impairment was sufficient for conviction and that the sentence was within legal parameters (paras 2-5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated driving while under the influence.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in sentencing the Defendant to fifteen days in jail and ordering him to wear a SCRAM bracelet for sixty days.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction and the sentence imposed by the district court (para 6).

Reasons

• Per Henderson, J., with Bogardus, J., and Yohalem, J., concurring:
  The court found the evidence sufficient to establish that the Defendant drove while impaired to the slightest degree by alcohol, citing observations of the officer and the Defendant's refusal to submit to a breath test as indicative of impairment and consciousness of guilt (paras 2-4).
  Regarding the sentence, the court noted the Defendant's acknowledgment of its legality and found no new arguments to persuade them that their proposed disposition was erroneous. The court emphasized the requirement for a party to specifically point out errors in law and fact in their opposition to a summary calendar notice (para 5).