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 numerous charges, including aggravated DWI, reckless driving, leaving the scene of an accident, resisting evading or obstructing an officer, and failing to give immediate notice of an accident. The evidence presented at trial included the Defendant's struggle with police officers during his arrest and certified copies of judgments and sentences to establish his prior DWI convictions.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, contending that being "a difficult drunk" does not suffice for the conviction of resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. He also challenged the authenticity of the documentary evidence presented by the State to establish his prior DWI convictions.
• Appellee: The State argued that there was ample evidentiary support for the convictions, including the Defendant's resistance during arrest and the certified copies of judgments and sentences for prior DWI convictions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions.
• Whether the documentary evidence presented by the State to establish the Defendant's prior DWI convictions was properly authenticated.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge, and Michael D. Bustamante, Judge, concurring): The Court found the State provided ample evidentiary support for the convictions, including testimony about the Defendant's resistance during arrest. The Court emphasized that it cannot re-weigh evidence on appeal and must defer to the district court's fact-finding, including the inferences drawn from the evidence (paras 1, {1}). Regarding the challenge to the authenticity of the documentary evidence for prior DWI convictions, the Court concluded that the certified copies of judgments and sentences were properly authenticated and admissible, dismissing the Defendant's concerns about document filing dates and recordkeeping practices as insufficient to demonstrate irregularity (para {1}).