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  Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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-38373

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ANGELA SANCHEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Jacqueline D. Flores, 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 Appellate Defender

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HANISEE, Chief Judge.

{1}       Defendant appeals the district court’s order affirming the metropolitan court’s determination that the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest Defendant for driving while intoxicated. We entered a notice of proposed disposition, proposing to affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition to that notice, which we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm.

{2}       On appeal, Defendant contends that there was insufficient probable cause for her arrest. Our notice of proposed disposition proposed to affirm, as the district court issued a thorough, well-reasoned memorandum opinion, presenting the facts and arguments of the case and the district court’s analysis in response thereto. [CN 2] We proposed to agree with the district court in its factual presentation, analysis, and conclusion, and proposed to adopt the district court’s memorandum opinion for purposes of this appeal.  [CN 2]

{3}       In her memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to assert that her testimony regarding her medical issues explained her poor performance on field sobriety tests, and that the trial court “incorrectly found the officer’s testimony more credible.” [MIO 1] We remain unpersuaded that Defendant has demonstrated error as to this issue. See State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829 (holding that the fact-finder is free to reject the defendant’s version of events); State v. Salas, 1999-NMCA-099, ¶ 13, 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 482 (recognizing that it is for the fact-finder to resolve any conflict in the testimony of the witnesses and to determine where the weight and credibility lie); State v. Mora, 1997-NMSC-060, ¶ 27, 124 N.M. 346, 950 P.2d 789 (holding that “[t]he reviewing court does not weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the fact[-]finder as long as there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict”); see also State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement). 

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

{5}       IT IS SO ORDERED.

J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge

WE CONCUR:

BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Judge

ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge