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 aggravated DWI and failure to maintain a traffic lane. Evidence presented at trial included the Defendant's failure to maintain his traffic lane, odor of alcohol, clues of intoxication from field sobriety tests, and refusal to undergo a breath test.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for failure to maintain a single traffic lane and aggravated DWI, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove his impairment or that he failed to maintain his traffic lane.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the evidence, including the Defendant's failure to maintain his traffic lane, odor of alcohol, performance on field sobriety tests, and refusal to take a breath test, was sufficient to support the convictions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for failure to maintain a single traffic lane and aggravated DWI.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge, and STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge, concurring): The Court found the evidence presented at trial, including the Defendant's failure to maintain his traffic lane, odor of alcohol, performance on field sobriety tests, and refusal to take a breath test, sufficient to support the convictions for failure to maintain a single traffic lane and aggravated DWI. The Court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, noting that the evidence clearly met the elements required for conviction. The Defendant's request for a more thorough factual development was denied, as the Court saw no basis for placing the case on the general calendar, affirming the district court’s judgment and sentence based on the evidence recounted in the docketing statement (paras 1-4).