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-Appellant, Mervyn Aylesbury, was convicted for driving while intoxicated (DWI). The evidence against him included weaving while driving, an admission of drinking, difficulty in producing requested documents, odor of alcohol, bloodshot watery eyes, slurred speech, and failure in numerous field sobriety tests.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Kenneth H. Martinez, District Judge, July 3, 2012.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the evidence presented, including his behavior and the results of field sobriety tests, was insufficient for a DWI conviction. He contended that external factors such as distractions from a cell phone and a dog in the vehicle, as well as his emotional state, could have influenced his appearance and conduct. He also questioned the probative value of the field sobriety tests.
• Appellee: Maintained that the evidence, including the Defendant's driving behavior, physical appearance, and the results of the BAC tests, was sufficient to establish probable cause for the arrest and to support the conviction for DWI.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was probable cause to arrest the Defendant for DWI.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for DWI under the per se DWI statute.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for driving while intoxicated.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Judge (Celia Foy Castillo, Chief Judge, and James J. Wechsler, Judge, concurring):
  The Court found that the evidence presented, including the Defendant's driving behavior, physical appearance, and the results of the BAC tests, constituted probable cause for the arrest and was sufficient to support the conviction for DWI. The Court referenced similar cases where such evidence was deemed adequate for DWI convictions. The Defendant's arguments regarding the influence of external factors on his appearance and conduct, and the questioning of the probative value of the field sobriety tests, were considered but ultimately rejected. The Court emphasized that it does not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder, as long as there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict.