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, Amy Jones, was convicted by bench trial for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (first offense) and for a stop sign violation. The Defendant appealed these convictions, raising issues related to her entitlement to a jury trial and the sufficiency of evidence considering her medical conditions and circumstances at the time of the offense (paras 1, 3).

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Jacqueline Flores, District Judge: Affirmance of Defendant's convictions by bench trial for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (first offense) and stop sign violation (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued entitlement to a jury trial for the DWI offense, considering it a serious offense. Contended the evidence was insufficient for conviction due to complications from hypoglycemia, recent inhaler use, and ankle tenderness (para 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant was entitled to a jury trial because a DWI offense is considered a serious offense.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the Defendant considering the complications presented by her hypoglycemia, recent use of her inhaler, and the tenderness of her ankle (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (first offense) and for a stop sign violation (para 4).

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge, and JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge concurring): The Court noted that a party responding to a proposed disposition must point out specific errors in fact or law, which the Defendant failed to do effectively. The Defendant's memorandum in opposition did not present new issues or arguments beyond those already considered by the Court in its notice of proposed disposition and the district court's memorandum opinion. The repetition of arguments from the docketing statement without specifying errors or new evidence was not sufficient to challenge the proposed disposition. Consequently, the Court affirmed the convictions, referencing the reasons set forth in both the notice of proposed disposition and the district court's memorandum opinion (paras 2-4).