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 for a first offense of driving while intoxicated (DWI). The conviction was based on evidence including the results of a breathalyzer test and observations made during field sobriety tests. The Defendant was found in the driver's seat of a vehicle parked facing the wrong side of the road, with his eyes closed.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Benjamin Chavez, District Judge, affirming the sentencing order of the metropolitan court that convicted the Defendant for first offense DWI.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his DWI conviction, specifically challenging the reliability of the breathalyzer test results due to alleged non-compliance with the required twenty-minute deprivation period before administering the test (paras 2-3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, questioning the propriety of reviewing on-record decisions from the district court. The State's motion was based on procedural grounds rather than the merits of the Defendant's conviction (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for first offense DWI under both the per se and the impairment-to-the-slightest-degree standards (para 2).
• Whether the appeal from on-record decisions of the district court is properly before the Court of Appeals (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals denied the State's motion to dismiss the appeal, affirming the Defendant's conviction for first offense DWI (paras 1, 6).

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Michael E. Vigil, J., M. Monica Zamora, J., concurring):
  The Court addressed the State's procedural challenge by referencing a prior decision (State v. Carroll) which clarified that appeals from on-record decisions of the district court are properly before the Court of Appeals, thereby denying the State's motion to dismiss on procedural grounds (para 1). Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court considered all evidence admitted, including potentially wrongfully admitted evidence, under the standard that reviews evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict. The Court found that the evidence, including the Defendant's performance on field sobriety tests and the circumstances of his arrest, was sufficient to support the conviction. The Defendant's challenge to the breathalyzer test's reliability based on the alleged procedural error was dismissed as irrelevant to the sufficiency of the evidence, as foundational requirements pertain to the admissibility of evidence rather than its sufficiency to support a conviction (paras 2-4).