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 driving while intoxicated (DWI) after a bench trial in metropolitan court. The conviction was based on evidence including a breath test showing a blood-alcohol concentration of .11, the Defendant reversing the car partially into a ditch, and testimony regarding the Defendant's alcohol consumption prior to driving.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Kenneth H. Martinez, District Judge: Affirmance of conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI) following a bench trial in metropolitan court.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the metropolitan court erred in admitting the breath test due to non-compliance with the twenty-minute deprivation period and questioned the relevance of the test. Contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the DWI conviction, specifically challenging the proof of impairment at the time of driving and the timing of alcohol consumption.
• Appellee (State): Maintained that the officer's testimony was sufficient to establish compliance with the accuracy-ensuring regulation for the breath test and argued that the evidence, including the breath test results and testimony regarding the Defendant's alcohol consumption, was sufficient to support the conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the metropolitan court erred in admitting the breath test results into evidence.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for DWI.
• The motion to amend the docketing statement regarding the sentencing order was denied.

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge (with RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, and CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge concurring):
  The Court found the officer's testimony regarding the twenty-minute deprivation period sufficient to support the district court's factual determination that the accuracy-ensuring regulation had been satisfied (para 2).
  The Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's argument regarding the relevance of the breath test results and the sufficiency of evidence related to the timing of alcohol consumption (paras 2-3).
  The Court concluded that the evidence, including a breath test result of .11, the circumstances of the car being in a ditch, and testimony about the Defendant's alcohol consumption, supported a reasonable inference that the Defendant consumed alcohol prior to driving. This was deemed sufficient to affirm the conviction (para 4).
  Regarding the motion to amend the docketing statement to address alleged errors in the sentencing order, the Court treated these as clerical errors that could be corrected by the metropolitan court and did not find them to constitute an "unauthorized" sentence that could be challenged for the first time on appeal (paras 5-6).