Court of Appeals of New Mexico

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.  Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.  Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-38151

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

FELISHA CAROL SAINZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Briana H. Zamora, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Santa Fe, NM
Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Public Defender
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

VANZI, Judge.

{1}       Defendant has appealed her convictions for DWI and an open container violation. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to uphold the convictions. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.

{2}       Because the pertinent background information and applicable principles have previously been set forth, we will avoid unnecessary repetition here, and instead focus on the content of the memorandum in opposition.

{3}       Defendant continues to challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support her convictions. [MIO 1-2] However, as the district court observed, [RP 82-88] the convictions are amply supported. Although Defendant contends that a variety of circumstances distinguish this case and should be said to diminish the probative value of the evidence that was presented, [MIO 1-2] we remain unpersuaded. “[A]s a reviewing court, we do not reweigh the evidence or attempt to draw alternative inferences from the evidence.” State v. Estrada, 2001-NMCA-034, ¶ 41, 130 N.M. 358, 24 P.3d 793; see also State v. Montoya, 2005-NMCA-078, ¶ 3, 137 N.M. 713, 114 P.3d 393 (“[T]he evidence is not to be reviewed with a divide-and-conquer mentality, . . . [ and w]e do not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the jury” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 

{4}       Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary disposition and above, we affirm.

{5}       IT IS SO ORDERED.

LINDA M. VANZI, Judge

WE CONCUR:

J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge

MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge