Case Information
*1 Before J UDGES D AVIS M C H UGH , V OROS .
PER CURIAM: Carl Dean appeals actual physical control
without system, misdemeanor. argues issue preserved appeal, contends either plain error by failing dismiss in district court. In appeal, convictions *2 driving under the influence alcohol, a third degree felony, alcohol restricted driver, a misdemeanor. We affirm. “[A]s a general rule, a defendant the sufficiency the proper objection to preserve the issue appeal.” Holgate ¶ 346. Never
theless, “trial court errs it submits the case to the jury thus fails to discharge when the insufficiency of is apparent the court.” ¶ “[T]o establish plain error, first was charged and second that case jury.” Id. When is challenged, appellate court reviews “the all light most favorable verdict.” Id. 18. The arresting officer testified he from
running computer check on driver license he required interlock on could operated, “which vehicle.” The officer testified ignition interlock that “has register subject no alcohol system before” will start. When arresting officer asked operated equipped with an interlock device, stated, “Yes, when I first approached I did notice one, then I found information, later during impound vehicle, no vehicle.” The testified he asked about ignition restriction, stated off probation could consume alcohol. At trial, testify instead testified no longer required because longer probation from prior case. infer from that *3 was mistaken in his initial belief that was and that such was, fact, not vehicle. testimony at effect that was not required have his also supported reasonable inference that such was installed vehicle. evidence Stringham was the was stopped was uncontroverted. If ignition been properly installed, not started intoxicated state. essentially claims ambiguous raised reasonable doubt about there vehicle. “To determine whether there sufficient evidence convict defendant, we do not examine whether we believe at trial established guilt beyond reasonable doubt,” instead determine whether “sufficiently inconclusive inherently improbable reasonable minds have entertained reasonable doubt which she convicted.” (citations internal quotation marks omitted). Given inferences therefrom, there It follows has not demon ‐ strated there of so not dismissing jury. also met burden of establishing
ineffective assistance counsel. To ineffective assistance counsel, show both “that counsel’s deficient as fall below objective standard reasonableness” “that but counsel’s deficient perfor mance probability outcome would been different.“ Smith (Utah 1995). “The motions objections which would futile raised constitute assistance.” *4 Whittle evidence were jury’s verdict, render deficient directed verdict otherwise raising challenge sufficiency evidence. Furthermore, cannot preju diced evidence. ¶6 Accordingly, affirm conviction.
____________________