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

• On November 22, 2009, around 1:00 PM, a deputy observed a white vehicle parked by the roadside with the Defendant in the driver's seat holding a beer can. Another individual, Mr. Rickley, was seen assisting the Defendant out of the driver's seat. Upon investigation, the deputy noted the keys in the ignition, an 18-pack of beer in the back seat, and signs of intoxication from the Defendant, who admitted to driving. The Defendant refused sobriety tests and was arrested after a blood draw showed a blood alcohol content of .31 gm/100mL. Mr. Rickley later indicated to another deputy that the Defendant was "all over the road" but testified at trial that a third person had been driving.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State failed to establish the corpus delicti of DWI for past driving and contended that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction under any theory.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the evidence, including the Defendant's admission, his physical condition, and the circumstances observed by the deputies, was sufficient to support a conviction for DWI on the basis of past driving or being in actual physical control of the vehicle with intent to drive.

Legal Issues

• Whether the State provided sufficient evidence to establish the corpus delicti of DWI for past driving.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for DWI under the theories of past driving or future driving (actual physical control).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for DWI.

Reasons

• Per Bustamante, J. (Kennedy and Vigil, JJ., concurring), the court found that the Defendant's admission, corroborated by circumstantial evidence including his physical condition, the presence of alcohol, and the vehicle's position, was sufficient to establish the corpus delicti for DWI for past driving. The court also noted that the evidence supported a conviction under the theory of past driving while impaired to the slightest degree, given the Defendant's high blood alcohol content and the testimony regarding his erratic driving. The court did not need to address the sufficiency of evidence for DWI based on future driving (actual physical control) since one of the alternative bases for conviction was supported by sufficient evidence.