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 under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (DWI) for the 9th time, classified as a second-degree felony. The conviction was based on evidence presented at trial, despite the Defendant's challenges regarding the sufficiency of evidence and procedural irregularities.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, John A. Dean, Jr., District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his DWI conviction, arguing there were no CAD reports, thus no evidence of reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop on private property. Additionally, contended that the State failed to prove his eight prior DWI convictions and raised issues regarding jury instructions, biased jury, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Appellee (State): Argued that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's DWI conviction and opposed the Defendant's motion to amend his docketing statement with additional issues.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's DWI conviction.
• Whether the Defendant could amend his docketing statement to include additional issues not previously raised.

Disposition

• The Court denied the Defendant's motion to amend his docketing statement and affirmed the Defendant's DWI conviction.

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE (LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, and DANIEL J. GALLEGOS, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that the Defendant did not demonstrate any specific errors in fact or law in the notice of proposed disposition and thus denied the motion to amend the docketing statement (paras 2-3).
  The Court concluded that the Defendant's new sufficiency challenges and other issues raised in the motion to amend were not viable because they lacked sufficient facts or legal basis (paras 4-7).
  The Court determined that the issues regarding improper jury instructions and biased jury were not preserved for appeal and, even if they were, did not amount to fundamental error (paras 6-10).
  The Court found no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct rising to the level of fundamental error and concluded that the Defendant did not make a prima facie case for ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 11-17).
  The Court rejected the cumulative error argument, stating that since no individual error was demonstrated, there could be no cumulative error affecting the fairness of the trial (paras 18-19).
  The Court affirmed the Defendant's conviction based on the sufficiency of evidence presented at trial and the lack of viable issues raised in the motion to amend (para 20).