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 found by police in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle with the ignition and lights on. The vehicle had been moved from a previous location near an REI to a motel parking lot. The Defendant exited the vehicle, turned it off, and placed the keys in his pocket. There was evidence suggesting the vehicle had been recently moved and the Defendant admitted to having a drink before driving.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish actual physical control of the vehicle and intent to drive, as well as insufficient to prove impairment. Contended that the vehicle being parked at the motel where he was staying indicated no present intent to move it and challenged the reliability of field sobriety tests.
• Appellee (State): Maintained that the Defendant was in actual physical control of the vehicle based on his position in the driver's seat with the ignition and lights on, possession of the keys, and the vehicle's recent movement. Argued that the Defendant's admission to drinking and the officers' observations supported the conviction for driving while intoxicated.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant was in actual physical control of the vehicle sufficient to support a conviction for driving while intoxicated.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence of the Defendant's impairment to uphold the conviction.

Disposition

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

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J., concurred by Celia Foy Castillo, Chief Judge, and Roderick T. Kennedy, Judge: The court found sufficient evidence that the Defendant was in actual physical control of the vehicle, citing his position in the driver's seat with the ignition and lights on, and the vehicle's recent movement. The court rejected the Defendant's argument that the evidence was unsubstantiated hearsay, noting officers verified the vehicle's movement. The court also found sufficient evidence of impairment, pointing to the Defendant's admission of drinking, the officers' observations of alcohol odor and bloodshot eyes, and the Defendant's performance on field sobriety tests. The court held that performance on standard field sobriety tests is accepted as evidence of impairment in New Mexico, dismissing the Defendant's challenges to their reliability and relevance.