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 of aggravated driving while intoxicated (refusal) following a bench trial. The conviction was based on the allegation that the Defendant was driving the vehicle on the evening in question.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the Metropolitan Court of Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted and received a judgment and deferred sentence for aggravated driving while intoxicated (refusal).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove that she was the person driving the vehicle on the evening in question.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated driving while intoxicated (refusal).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s conviction.

Reasons

• Judges Jacqueline R. Medina, Zachary A. Ives, and Jane B. Yohalem concurred in the decision. The Court considered the Defendant's memorandum in opposition but remained unpersuaded by her arguments against the sufficiency of the evidence regarding her being the driver on the evening in question (para 1-3). The Court referenced its notice of proposed disposition, where it had already addressed and rejected the Defendant's argument. The Defendant's repetition of earlier arguments did not fulfill the requirement to specifically point out errors of law and fact. The Court cited previous cases to support the principle that the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law (para 2).