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 in a bench trial for aggravated driving while intoxicated after a McDonald’s employee testified that she observed the Defendant slurring her speech at the drive-thru and saw a male passenger advising the Defendant not to drive to avoid a DWI. The employee also witnessed the male passenger taking control of the vehicle and parking it (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court of Bernalillo County: Convicted the Defendant of aggravated driving while intoxicated.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence of impaired operation to sustain a conviction for driving while intoxicated, specifically challenging the sufficiency of the evidence regarding her operation of the vehicle while impaired (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for driving while intoxicated based on the observations of a McDonald’s drive-thru employee and the circumstances surrounding the Defendant’s appearance and behavior at the time (para 2).

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, maintaining the Defendant's conviction for aggravated driving while intoxicated (para 5).

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with Judges Jacqueline R. Medina and Zachary A. Ives concurring, the court found the evidence presented at trial, specifically the testimony of the McDonald’s employee regarding the Defendant’s behavior and the subsequent actions taken by a male passenger, to be sufficient to affirm the conviction. The court was not persuaded by the Defendant’s argument that the McDonald’s employee did not witness her operating the vehicle but only observed the male passenger taking control of the vehicle. The court concluded that the circumstantial evidence of the Defendant being in the driver's seat at the drive-thru, slurring her words, and the actions of the male passenger were sufficient to infer that the Defendant had driven while intoxicated. The court also noted that the Defendant did not provide any compelling arguments or facts to challenge the presumption that she was the driver or to show any error in the lower court's decision (paras 2-5).