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 for not wearing a seatbelt, a traffic offense, after a trial in district court that followed a magistrate court conviction. The Defendant, representing himself, challenged the credibility of the officer's testimony regarding the visibility of the seatbelt on him.

Procedural History

• District Court of Luna County, Jennifer E. Delaney, District Judge: Convicted the Defendant for the traffic offense of no seatbelt following a de novo trial after a magistrate court conviction.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the evidence, including the officer's testimony, was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for not wearing a seatbelt.
• Defendant-Appellant (Kolter Clayton): Contended that the officer's testimony was not credible, arguing that it was contradicted by the officer's own admission and thus the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for not wearing a seatbelt.
• Whether the district court erred in crediting the officer's testimony over the Defendant's version of the facts.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's conviction of the Defendant for the traffic offense of no seatbelt.

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J., with Roderick T. Kennedy, J., and Timothy L. Garcia, J., concurring:
  The Court explained that the district court, as the finder of fact, is responsible for weighing the credibility of witnesses and resolving conflicts in evidence to reach factual determinations. The appellate court does not re-weigh evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses on appeal (para 2).
  The Court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's arguments challenging the officer's credibility and maintained that the district court was entitled to reject the Defendant's version of the facts. It highlighted that the fact-finder is free to reject a defendant’s version of events and that sufficient evidence supported the verdict (para 2).
  The Court noted that the docketing statement did not provide sufficient facts to fully address the issue of evidence sufficiency. It also mentioned that it is not appropriate for a transcript of proceedings to be filed in the Court for a case on the summary calendar, and it is the Defendant's obligation to provide an adequate summary of the facts. The presumption in favor of the correctness and regularity of the trial court's decision stands in the absence of a complete factual record (para 3).