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 under the influence (DUI). The evidence presented at trial included that the Defendant was found in the driver's seat of a vehicle with the engine running and the key in the ignition during daytime hours. The vehicle was legally parked in a parking space, and the Defendant was either asleep or unconscious. The Defendant argued that the vehicle was being used as a shelter, and the air conditioner was running because the key was in the ignition (paras 1, 5).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the Metropolitan Court of Bernalillo County: Conviction for driving while under the influence (DUI) affirmed.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, specifically challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to prove intent to operate the motor vehicle. The Defendant conceded that the key was in the ignition and the engine was running but argued this was necessary for using the air conditioner. The Defendant also argued that sitting in the driver's seat with the seat not reclined was consistent with using the vehicle as a shelter and pointed out that being found asleep or unconscious in the vehicle reflected a lack of intent to drive (paras 2, 5).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DUI, specifically regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that the Defendant had intent to operate the motor vehicle.

Disposition

• The Defendant's conviction for driving while under the influence (DUI) was affirmed.

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with Jacqueline R. Medina, Judge, and Megan P. Duffy, Judge, concurring: The court found that the Defendant's arguments regarding the insufficiency of the evidence were unpersuasive. It highlighted the legal standard for determining sufficiency of the evidence and noted that the Defendant did not renew certain arguments, effectively abandoning them. The court considered a nonexhaustive list of factors to determine whether an individual was in actual physical control of the vehicle with the intent to drive. Despite the Defendant's arguments, the court found significant the fact that the Defendant was in the driver's seat during daytime hours and had not reclined the seat, indicating an intent to drive rather than use the vehicle as a shelter. The court also considered the Defendant's statement to police about meeting his son in the parking lot as relevant to his intent to drive. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, emphasizing the role of the fact-finder to weigh the evidence under the totality of the circumstances and determine the Defendant's intent (paras 1-8).