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 DWI under a conditional, no-contest plea agreement. The conviction stemmed from an incident where the Defendant was observed driving at a faster than normal speed through a parking lot, making an audible noise over a speed hump. The officer noted the Defendant smelled of alcohol, admitted to drinking a beer, had noticeably "dragged" speech, and bloodshot, watery eyes. The Defendant also performed poorly on three field sobriety tests (FSTs) (para 4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Charles W. Brown, District Judge: Affirmed the metropolitan court’s sentencing order that convicted the Defendant for DWI under a conditional, no-contest plea agreement.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop and probable cause for the arrest. Argued that the evidence regarding the Defendant’s odor of alcohol and the reason for the stop (speeding or faulty illumination of his license plate) was conflicting. Also argued that the officer did not consider how the Defendant’s detached retina affected his balance in the FSTs, despite evidence of the Defendant driving, walking, and talking normally (paras 2-3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that there was sufficient evidence of less-than-safe driving and intoxication to support the officer’s probable cause for the arrest. Highlighted the Defendant's speed, the noise made over a speed hump, the smell of alcohol, the Defendant's admission of drinking, his "dragged" speech, bloodshot, watery eyes, and poor performance on FSTs as evidence supporting the conviction (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion for the stop.
• Whether the officer had probable cause for the arrest.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the district court’s judgment, which had affirmed the metropolitan court’s sentencing order convicting the Defendant for DWI under a conditional, no-contest plea agreement (para 6).

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE, with M. MONICA ZAMORA and JULIE J. VARGAS concurring, the court found that the Defendant did not preserve his challenge to the stop and thus declined to address this matter further. The court also found that the Defendant did preserve and reserve his challenge to his arrest on the basis that the officer lacked probable cause. However, the court concluded that the evidence was adequate to support the officer’s probable cause to believe that the Defendant was driving while impaired to the slightest degree, citing evidence of less-than-safe driving and intoxication. The court emphasized that it is not their role to resolve conflicts in the evidence or determine where the weight and credibility lie. The court also addressed the Defendant’s concerns regarding his right to appellate review, explaining the process and encouraging counsel for future docketing statements to focus on pointing out errors in both metropolitan court decisions and in the district court memorandum opinions (paras 2-5).