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. The events leading to this conviction involved an arrest by an officer, which the Defendant later contested, arguing that the officer did not have probable cause for the arrest.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the Metropolitan Court of Bernalillo County: Conviction for driving while intoxicated.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to arrest her for driving while intoxicated.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the officer had probable cause to arrest the Defendant for driving while intoxicated.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals summarily affirmed the Defendant's conviction for driving while intoxicated.

Reasons

• J. Miles Hanisee, Chief Judge, with Jennifer L. Attrep and Briana H. Zamora, Judges, concurring, found that the Defendant's memorandum in opposition did not present any new facts, law, or arguments that would persuade the Court that the notice of proposed disposition was erroneous. The Court referred to its analysis in the notice of proposed disposition and previous case law stating the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law. The repetition of earlier arguments did not fulfill this requirement, leading to the affirmation of the Defendant's conviction (paras 1-3).