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, David Lopez, was found guilty of felony driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and/or drugs (DWI), marking his fifth offense, following his entry of a guilty plea.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, John A. Dean, Jr., District Judge: Defendant found guilty of felony DWI, fifth offense, following a guilty plea.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Challenged the validity of his conviction and sought to amend his docketing statement to argue that three of his prior DWI convictions should not be used for enhancement purposes due to the lack of a countersignature by the public defender on the waiver of counsel forms.
• Appellee (State): Argued against the Defendant's challenge to the validity of his prior convictions and opposed the amendment of the docketing statement on the basis that the issue raised was not viable.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant demonstrated the invalidity of his prior DWI convictions.
• Whether the lack of a countersignature by the public defender on the waiver of counsel forms for three of the Defendant's prior DWI convictions renders those waivers invalid for enhancement purposes.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the District Court, finding the Defendant guilty of felony DWI, fifth offense.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges M. Monica Zamora, Roderick T. Kennedy, and Timothy L. Garcia, provided the following reasons for their decision:
  The Court found that the Defendant did not demonstrate the invalidity of his prior DWI convictions (para 1).
  The Court denied the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement, stating that the issue of the lack of a public defender's countersignature on the waiver of counsel forms is not viable for challenging the validity of prior convictions. This decision was based on precedent from State v. Pino, which held that the absence of a countersignature does not invalidate a waiver of counsel for the purposes of enhancing later convictions (para 3).
  The Court concluded that it was the Defendant's burden to produce evidence demonstrating the invalidity of those convictions, specifically any procedural and constitutional deficiencies that amounted to fundamental error. The Court found that the Defendant failed to meet this burden (para 4).