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 in the metropolitan court of aggravated DWI, stopped vehicle not to interfere with traffic, and open container. His sentence was suspended pursuant to the DWI first offender program (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the Metropolitan Court of Bernalillo County: Conviction of aggravated DWI, stopped vehicle not to interfere with traffic, and open container, with sentence suspended pursuant to the DWI first offender program.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was fundamental error when the State did not formally amend the criminal complaint but verbally stated at a hearing that the DWI charge was amended from a second offense to a first offense. Also argued that the State deprived him of his right to a jury trial by amending the charge to reduce the maximum possible incarcerated sentence to six months (paras 2-4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether there was fundamental error in the State's failure to formally amend the criminal complaint from a second offense DWI to a first offense DWI.
• Whether the State deprived the Defendant of his right to a jury trial by amending the criminal complaint to reduce the maximum possible incarcerated sentence to six months.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the metropolitan court’s judgment and sentence (para 5).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee, Judge Kristina Bogardus, and Judge Zachary A. Ives, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. The Court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's arguments, finding no fundamental error in the State's handling of the criminal complaint amendment and no violation of the Defendant's right to a jury trial. The Court relied on precedent stating that merely repeating earlier arguments does not demonstrate error and noted the absence of authority supporting the Defendant's position on the right to a jury trial based on the nature of the charge (paras 2-4).