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 DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) under the impairment-to-the-slightest-degree standard. The State's evidence primarily came from the testimony of the officer who initiated the stop and conducted the DWI investigation (para 3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the evidence presented, especially through the testimony of the officer, was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI (para 3).
• Defendant-Appellant (Angel Chavez): Contended that the totality of the evidence was not compelling enough to establish guilt with certitude, urging the Court to re-weigh the credibility of witnesses and draw its own inferences (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review decisions rendered by the district courts in cases involving on-record appeals (para 1).
• Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI under the impairment-to-the-slightest-degree standard (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court denied the State’s motion to dismiss, affirming its jurisdiction to review the case (para 1).
• The Court affirmed the Defendant's conviction for DWI (para 4).

Reasons

• The decision was delivered by Judge Timothy L. Garcia, with Judges J. Miles Hanisee and M. Monica Zamora concurring. The Court first addressed the State's motion to dismiss, citing a recent decision in State v. Carroll, which confirmed the Court's jurisdiction over appeals from on-record decisions heard first by the district courts (para 1). On the merits of the case, the Court considered the Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her DWI conviction. Despite the Defendant's arguments suggesting the evidence was not compelling enough to establish guilt with certitude, the Court declined to re-weigh witness credibility or draw its own inferences, adhering to the principle that it will not substitute its determination of the facts for that of the jury as long as there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict. The Court's decision to affirm the conviction was based on the evidence presented by the State and the legal standard that appellate courts do not re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses or the weight of the evidence when a sufficient basis exists to support the jury's verdict (paras 2-4).