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 of aggravated driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (refusal) and failing to maintain traffic lane. The Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, arguing that factors other than intoxication, such as obscured headlights, faded lane markers, and personal injuries, affected his driving and performance on field sobriety tests.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for aggravated driving under the influence, citing external factors affecting driving performance and sobriety test results.
• Appellee (State): Maintained that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions.

Legal Issues

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

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the misdemeanor convictions for aggravated driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (refusal) and for failing to maintain traffic lane.

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, and RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge concurring):
  The Court remained unpersuaded by the Defendant's arguments against the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. It acknowledged the Defendant's claims regarding the reasons for his impaired driving performance but emphasized the jury's discretion to reject the Defendant's version of events. The Court referenced previous cases to support its decision, indicating that the factfinder has the authority to weigh evidence and determine credibility, thereby affirming the convictions based on the jury's judgment.