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 driving while intoxicated. The conviction was based on evidence presented at trial, despite testimony indicating that the Defendant had not been drinking on the night of her arrest.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Briana H. Zamora, District Judge

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction of driving while intoxicated, pointing to testimony that she had not been drinking on the night of her arrest (paras 1-2).
• Appellee: The State defended the conviction, presumably arguing that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Specific arguments from the State are not detailed in the decision.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction of driving while intoxicated.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence entered by the lower court (para 3).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, J. (JULIE J. VARGAS, J., JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, J., concurring):
  The Court held that it is the role of the fact-finder to resolve conflicting testimony and that a reviewing court does not reweigh evidence for the purpose of making credibility determinations. The Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, based on testimony that she had not been drinking, was not persuasive. The repetition of earlier arguments in the Defendant's memorandum in opposition to the proposed summary disposition did not specifically point out errors of law and fact as required. Therefore, the Court affirmed the conviction, relying on established legal principles that prevent it from interfering with the fact-finder's role in resolving conflicts in testimony (paras 1-3).