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

• A Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Deputy stopped the Driver for failing to maintain a traffic lane and observed signs of intoxication. Despite the Driver's primary language being Spanish, the Deputy read the implied consent advisory in English, which the Driver refused to comply with, leading to the revocation of his driver's license for one year. The Driver contested the revocation, arguing that the advisory should have been given in Spanish to ensure his understanding (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) hearing: The hearing officer sustained the revocation of the Driver's license, finding that the Driver understood the implied consent advisory given in English (para 5).
• District Court of Bernalillo County: Converted the appeal into a petition for writ of mandamus and denied relief, ruling it had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal based on due process arguments (para 7).

Parties' Submissions

• Driver: Argued that the implied consent advisory should have been given in Spanish, his native language, to ensure his understanding and that the failure to do so violated his due process rights under the New Mexico Constitution (para 6).
• MVD: Contended that the evidence supported the hearing officer's finding that the Driver understood English and the implied consent advisory (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in converting the appeal into a petition for writ of mandamus instead of deciding the case as an appeal (para 1).
• Whether the MVD has the authority to decide the Driver’s due process claim in an administrative hearing under the Implied Consent Act (para 8).
• Whether due process requires that a non-English speaking driver fully understand the implications of his or her refusal to submit to a breath- or blood-alcohol test upon request (para 15).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the district court and remanded the case for consideration in its appellate capacity (para 18).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judges Michael E. Vigil, James J. Wechsler, and Jonathan B. Sutin concurring, found that the district court erred in converting the appeal into a petition for writ of mandamus. The court determined that the MVD must answer constitutional questions arising from the language of Section 66-8-112(E)(2) and that due process protections apply to the revocation of a driver's license. The Court of Appeals concluded that the district court must hear and decide the question in its appellate capacity, applying the standard of review directed by Section 66-8-112(H) and Rule 1-074(R), rather than under its original mandamus jurisdiction (paras 8-18).