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 of driving while under the influence of alcohol (DWI) after a series of events involving erratic driving and subsequent police intervention. The Defendant had at least seven prior DWI convictions. On the night in question, the Defendant engaged in reckless driving, which prompted a neighbor to call the police. Upon arrival, the police officer conducted field sobriety tests, which the Defendant failed, leading to his arrest. Breath-alcohol content tests at the police station showed levels significantly above the legal limit. The Defendant's conviction was based on this evidence, among other things (paras 2-7).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant's conviction and sentence should be upheld based on the evidence presented at trial, including the results of the Defendant's breath-alcohol content tests and expert testimony regarding the Defendant's level of intoxication at the time of the incident (paras 8-25).
• Defendant-Appellant (Marvin Romero): Sought reversal of his conviction on several grounds, including improper admission of expert testimony, errors in denying motions for a directed verdict and to suppress evidence, disqualification of a juror, violation of the right to a speedy trial, and miscalculation of pre-sentence confinement time (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in admitting expert testimony regarding the Defendant's blood alcohol content (BAC).
• Whether the district court properly denied the Defendant's motion for a directed verdict.
• Whether allowing the expert to testify violated the Defendant's right to due process.
• Whether the district court properly denied the Defendant's motion to suppress.
• Whether excluding a Spanish-speaking juror constituted reversible error.
• Whether the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated.
• Whether the Defendant was entitled to presentence confinement credit (paras 9, 21, 24, 26, 29, 33, 47).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction and sentence, finding no basis for reversal on any of the grounds raised by the Defendant (para 8).

Reasons

• Admissibility of Expert Testimony: The court found that the expert testimony regarding the Defendant's BAC was properly admitted, as it was based on reasonable inferences and generally accepted forensic practices (paras 9-20).
  Directed Verdict: The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, even without considering the expert testimony (para 23).
  Due Process: The court rejected the Defendant's argument that the expert was a "contingency fee witness," finding no evidence that the expert personally profited from the Defendant's conviction (para 25).
  Motion to Suppress: The court found that the Defendant voluntarily admitted the police officer into his home, thus the evidence collected thereafter was admissible (para 28).
  Spanish-Speaking Juror: The court concluded that the Defendant invited the error he now complains of by declining the court's offer to make a record of efforts to secure an interpreter (para 32).
  Speedy Trial: The court determined that the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated, considering the length of delay, reasons for delay, assertion of the right, and lack of demonstrated prejudice (paras 34-46).
  Presentence Confinement Credit: The court held that the Defendant was not entitled to presentence confinement credit for the time spent wearing a SCRAM unit or for time spent under house arrest, as these conditions did not sufficiently limit his freedom of movement (paras 47-50).