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 pursued by a deputy for speeding and failing to stop. The deputy briefly lost sight of the vehicle before finding it parked at an apartment complex. The Defendant admitted to driving with a suspended license, consuming an alcohol-based energy drink, and using medication. Field sobriety tests indicated impairment, and a blood test revealed a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.10 grams per 100 milliliters.
Procedural History
- District Court, Otero County: The Defendant was convicted of driving while under the influence (DWI) under both the impairment and per se alternatives of NMSA 1978, § 66-8-102(A) and (C)(1) (2008).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the DWI conviction, claiming the State failed to prove he was the driver and challenging the credibility of the deputy’s testimony. Additionally, the Defendant argued that the jury erred in rejecting alibi testimony and that the State failed to prove a fourth prior DWI conviction.
- Appellee (State): Asserted that sufficient evidence supported the conviction, including the deputy’s observations, the Defendant’s admissions, field sobriety test results, and BAC evidence. The State also argued that the jury was entitled to reject the alibi testimony and that evidence of four prior DWI convictions was properly introduced.
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s conviction for DWI under both the impairment and per se alternatives?
- Did the jury err in rejecting the Defendant’s alibi testimony?
- Did the State fail to prove the existence of a fourth prior DWI conviction?
- Was the Defendant’s trial counsel ineffective for failing to call additional alibi witnesses and for not moving for a new trial based on a post-sentencing confession by the Defendant’s son?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions.
- The Court denied the Defendant’s motion to amend the docketing statement to include an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Reasons
Per Vigil J. (Bustamante and Robles JJ. concurring):
Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court held that sufficient evidence supported the DWI conviction under both the impairment and per se alternatives. The deputy’s testimony, the Defendant’s admissions, field sobriety test results, and BAC evidence established the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury could reasonably find that the Defendant was the driver based on the deputy’s description, the Defendant’s agitated state, and his admission to driving.
Alibi Testimony: The Court rejected the Defendant’s argument that the jury erred in disregarding the alibi testimony, noting that credibility determinations and resolution of conflicting evidence are within the jury’s purview.
Prior DWI Convictions: The Court found no error in the district court’s determination that the Defendant had four prior DWI convictions, as the judgment indicated that the State introduced evidence of these convictions.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The Court denied the motion to amend the docketing statement, finding that the ineffective assistance claim was not viable. The decision not to call additional alibi witnesses was deemed a matter of trial strategy, and there was no record evidence to support the Defendant’s claim that his son’s post-sentencing confession warranted a new trial. The Court emphasized that such claims are better addressed through a habeas corpus petition.