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 of DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) and speeding. He appealed these convictions, arguing that the metropolitan court erred in rejecting his defense of duress.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the Metropolitan Court of Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted of DWI and speeding.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the metropolitan court erred in rejecting his defense of duress (para 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the metropolitan court erred in rejecting the Defendant's defense of duress.

Disposition

• The convictions for DWI and speeding were affirmed.

Reasons

• The decision was authored by Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, with Judges Kristina Bogardus and Zachary A. Ives concurring. The appellate court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's memorandum in opposition and decided to affirm the convictions. The court applied a highly deferential standard of review for substantial evidence challenges, emphasizing that it could not substitute its judgment for that of the fact-finder. The court found no basis to question the metropolitan court’s determination that the Defendant had reasonable legal alternatives to continuing to drive while intoxicated, viewing this as fundamentally a factual determination based on reasonable inferences from the evidence. The appellate court acknowledged that the evidence might have supported a different result but noted that the metropolitan court was not required to adopt the Defendant’s view or to credit his claim of duress (paras 1-6).