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 driving while intoxicated (DWI) and failing to stop at a stop sign. The conviction followed an on-record appeal from metropolitan court, where the Defendant's motion to suppress Officer Martinez's testimony was denied. The Defendant argued that he was subject to a de facto arrest.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Jacqueline Flores, District Judge, affirming the Defendant's convictions for DWI and failing to stop at a stop sign.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that he was subject to a de facto arrest and that the metropolitan court erred by denying his motion to suppress Officer Martinez’s testimony.
• Appellee: Argued in favor of affirming the Defendant's convictions, presumably contending that the Defendant was not subject to a de facto arrest and that the motion to suppress was rightly denied.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant was subject to a de facto arrest.
• Whether the metropolitan court erred by denying the Defendant's motion to suppress Officer Martinez’s testimony.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment affirming the Defendant's convictions for DWI and failing to stop at a stop sign.

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Jonathan B. Sutin and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, the Court found the metropolitan court did not err in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress because the Defendant was not subject to a de facto arrest. The Court acknowledged conflicting testimony regarding the response time of Officer Martinez but deferred to the factfinder's role in resolving such conflicts and determining credibility. The district court concluded, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that the Defendant's detention for less than twenty minutes before the DWI officer's arrival was reasonable and did not constitute a de facto arrest. The Defendant's memorandum in opposition did not provide new facts or legal arguments sufficient to alter the Court's proposed summary disposition, leading to the affirmation of the convictions (paras 1-5).