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 pleaded guilty to aggravated driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (DWI) and driving the wrong way on a one-way roadway. The appeal focused on the enhancement of the current DWI charge to a fourth offense, based on the validity of one of the prior DWI convictions used for enhancement. The Defendant argued that the prior DWI was invalid because the State did not establish that he was represented by counsel during that conviction (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that one of the prior DWIs used for enhancement to a fourth DWI was invalid because the State did not establish that he was represented by counsel in that prior case.
• Appellee: Initially, the State did not file a memorandum in opposition to the Defendant's appeal but later indicated that it would not be opposing the Defendant's arguments for reversing the decision (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether one of the prior DWIs used for enhancement to a fourth DWI was invalid due to the lack of established representation by counsel.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the judgment and sentence based on the argument that one of the prior DWIs used for enhancement was invalid because the State did not establish that the Defendant was represented by counsel (para 1).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, and M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, concurring): The court initially proposed to affirm the judgment and sentence but reversed its decision upon consideration of the Defendant's arguments against the validity of one of the prior DWI convictions used for enhancement. The reversal was based on the State's failure to establish that the Defendant was represented by counsel in the prior DWI conviction in question. The State's subsequent decision not to file a memorandum in opposition to the Defendant's appeal further supported the court's decision to reverse the judgment and sentence (paras 1-2).