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 a seventh offense DWI following a jury trial and driving on a revoked license pursuant to a plea agreement. The district court sentenced him to three years in prison for the DWI conviction and 364 days for driving on a revoked license, to be served concurrently. The Defendant acknowledged his alcohol problem and need for treatment, had been sober for two years at the time of sentencing, completed probation and parole successfully, and had steady employment and a family needing his support (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the three-year sentence for the seventh DWI offense denied him due process and subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment, despite acknowledging the sentence was authorized by statute. Contended the court should have imposed the two-year mandatory minimum, citing his acknowledgment of alcohol issues, successful completion of probation and parole, sobriety for two years, steady employment, and family responsibilities (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's three-year sentence for a seventh DWI offense constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of due process.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence (para 7).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Megan P. Duffy, with Chief Judge Jennifer L. Attrep and Judge Jane B. Yohalem concurring, found no basis for reversal of the Defendant's sentence. The Court noted that the Defendant did not preserve the issue of his sentence being unconstitutionally cruel and unusual for appeal and that, generally, a sentence authorized by statute does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The Court also highlighted that the Defendant did not argue his sentence was disproportionate to his seventh DWI conviction nor did he demonstrate exceptional circumstances that would shock the conscience or violate principles of fundamental fairness. Furthermore, the Court stated that there is no abuse of discretion if the sentence imposed is authorized by law, which was the case here (paras 3-6).