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 involved in a vehicle accident where his vehicle hit another while turning into an Albertson’s, resulting in his vehicle rolling over four times. Among the debris, two crushed beer cans were found. The Defendant, identified as the vehicle's owner, exhibited rude behavior towards ambulance personnel, had bloodshot watery eyes, slurred speech, and smelled of alcohol. He also refused to let an officer finish reading implied consent directives and did not submit to chemical testing inquiries (paras 4-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for DWI under the “slightest degree” alternative, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence regarding his alcohol consumption and impairment (para 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI under the “slightest degree” alternative (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the Defendant's conviction for first offender DWI (slightest degree) and remanded the case with instructions to correct a typographical error in the record (para 1, 6).

Reasons

• Per KRISTINA BOGARDUS, J. (MEGAN P. DUFFY, J., and ZACHARY A. IVES, J., concurring):
  The Court found that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction. The testimony of Jamie Orozco about the accident, the presence of open containers in the debris, the Defendant's behavior towards ambulance personnel, his refusal to allow an officer to finish reading implied consent directives, and his physical symptoms indicative of alcohol consumption were all considered. The Court concluded that these factors, along with the Defendant's refusal to submit to chemical testing, supported the conviction under the “slightest degree” DWI charge. The Court also noted that the metropolitan court, acting as the fact-finder, was entitled to rely on reasonable inferences from the evidence presented to conclude that the Defendant had consumed alcohol and was impaired. The decision to affirm was based on precedents that similar evidence was sufficient to uphold DWI convictions. Additionally, the Court instructed the correction of a clerical error in the record, which incorrectly stated the provision of the DWI statute under which the Defendant was convicted (paras 2-6).