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 driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DWI). The conviction stemmed from an incident where a police officer observed a car driving erratically and followed it into a mobile home park. The car was eventually found parked in front of a trailer with the Defendant in the driver's seat. The Defendant argued that he was not in actual physical control of the vehicle as he had entered the car only after it was parked.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on "actual physical control" as per State v. Sims, asserting that evidence supported a finding he entered the car only after it arrived at the mobile home park. The Defendant also contended that the evidence was insufficient to establish actual physical control over the vehicle, necessitating a vacating of the conviction.
• Appellee: The State argued that the evidence did not support an instruction on actual physical control because the vehicle was observed in motion, which is sufficient to prove DWI under the statute. The State also maintained that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's request for a jury instruction on "actual physical control."
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's challenge to the State’s exercise of a peremptory challenge against a juror.

Disposition

• The appeal was denied, and the Defendant's conviction for DWI was affirmed.

Reasons

• Per VANZI, J., with concurrence from GARCIA, J., and ZAMORA, J.:
  The court found that the Defendant's request for a jury instruction on "actual physical control" was not warranted because the vehicle was observed in motion, which is sufficient under the DWI statute to prove the offense. The court distinguished the present facts from those in State v. Sims, noting that Sims and similar cases involved vehicles not observed in motion, which is not the case here. The court also addressed the sufficiency of the evidence, concluding that a reasonable juror could infer the Defendant was the driver observed operating the vehicle erratically, thus supporting the conviction for DWI. Regarding the peremptory challenge issue, the court agreed that the district court made no findings on whether the Defendant established a prima facie case of discrimination, rendering the issue moot. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in accepting the State's race-neutral reason for the peremptory challenge against juror Victoria Rubio. Lastly, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence, noting the Defendant did not challenge the proposed disposition concerning the illegal sentence issue raised in the docketing statement.