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

• On July 8, 2007, around 12:30 a.m., an Albuquerque Police Officer observed the Defendant weaving in the center lane and exceeding the speed limit, leading to a traffic stop. The officer noted the Defendant's bloodshot, watery eyes, slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol. Despite the Defendant's refusal to perform field sobriety tests (FSTs) and denial of alcohol consumption, he was arrested and transported to the police station. There, two breath alcohol tests (BATs) showed levels of .13, resulting in his conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DWI) and speeding.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant was rightfully convicted of DWI and speeding based on the officer's observations, the Defendant's refusal to perform FSTs, and the results of the BATs.
• Defendant-Appellant (Richard Williams): Contended that the officer lacked probable cause for the arrest for DWI and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the officer had probable cause to arrest the Defendant for DWI.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for DWI and speeding.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions for DWI and speeding.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with Roderick T. Kennedy and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, the court found that the officer had probable cause to arrest the Defendant for DWI based on his observations of the Defendant's behavior and physical condition, as well as the Defendant's refusal to perform FSTs. The court also determined that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. For the DWI charge, the court relied on the officer's testimony and the results of the BATs. For the speeding charge, despite inconsistencies in the officer's testimony regarding the location and the exact speed, the court found the testimony about pacing the Defendant's vehicle sufficient to support the conviction. The court emphasized that it would not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder.