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, John Box, was convicted for driving while under the influence (fifth offense) and failure to give immediate notice of an accident. These convictions led to an appeal where the Defendant sought to challenge the outcomes of the trial court's decisions.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: The Defendant filed a docketing statement to appeal his convictions for driving under the influence (fifth offense) and failure to give immediate notice of an accident (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The State did not concur with the Defendant's motion for appointment of appellate counsel due to no showing of indigency (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's convictions for driving while under the influence (fifth offense) and failure to give immediate notice of an accident should be affirmed in the absence of a memorandum in opposition to the notice of proposed disposition.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions for driving while under the influence (fifth offense) and failure to give immediate notice of an accident (para 3).

Reasons

• Per WECHSLER, J. (BUSTAMANTE, J., GARCIA, J., concurring): The Court decided to affirm the Defendant's convictions based on the absence of a memorandum in opposition to the Court's notice of proposed disposition. The Court noted that the Defendant, represented by private counsel, received the notice but failed to respond, leading to the affirmation of the convictions as initially proposed by the Court. Additionally, the Court observed procedural aspects regarding the Defendant's representation and the motion for appointment of appellate counsel, noting that despite a temporary appointment for the purpose of filling out an indigent form, the appellate public defender was not appointed to represent the Defendant in his appeal (paras 1-2).