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 or drugs (seventh offense) and for driving while his license was suspended or revoked. The appeal focused on the admissibility of evidence regarding the Defendant's blood alcohol level, specifically challenging the district court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence based on the blood vial being undated.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence of his blood alcohol level due to the vial of blood being undated. Cited State v. Franklin and State v. Boyer to support the argument.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of his blood alcohol level because the vial of blood was undated.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's DWI conviction and dismissed the appeal regarding the unconditional guilty plea to driving while his license was suspended or revoked.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge (Linda M. Vanzi, Judge, and Timothy L. Garcia, Judge, concurring):
  The Court found that the lack of a date on the vial of blood goes to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility, affirming the district court's decision (para 2).
  The Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's arguments to reverse the DWI conviction, noting that the cases cited by the Defendant (State v. Franklin and State v. Boyer) did not support his argument for reversing the DWI conviction (para 3).
  The issue regarding the appeal of the unconditional guilty plea to driving while his license was suspended or revoked was deemed abandoned by the Defendant, as he did not address the Court's proposed dismissal of this appeal in his memorandum in opposition (para 4).