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 aggravated driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI) by the metropolitan court, a decision later affirmed by the district court. The appeal to the Court of Appeals centered around the argument that the circumstances leading to the Defendant's stop and subsequent arrest, particularly the reliance on an anonymous tip, had changed since a precedent-setting case, thereby questioning the validity of the stop based on reasonable suspicion (para 1).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed the metropolitan court’s judgment and sentencing order convicting the Defendant of aggravated DUI.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the Defendant waived his only issue on appeal by not raising it in his statement of issues to the district court, thus the appeal should be affirmed (para 1).
• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the arguments and case law listed in the Docketing Statement pertained to the question of whether there was reasonable suspicion for a stop, arguing that the Court should focus on the substance of the arguments rather than the headings to determine the issue raised. Additionally, the Defendant sought to revisit the decision in Contreras in light of changed circumstances since that decision (paras 2-5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant waived his reasonable suspicion argument by not properly raising it in his statement of issues to the district court.
• Whether the Court should revisit the decision in Contreras in light of changed circumstances since that decision.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentencing order convicting the Defendant of aggravated DUI.

Reasons

• Per Julie J. Vargas, with Jennifer L. Attrep and Megan P. Duffy concurring, the Court found that the Defendant did not raise his reasonable suspicion argument to the district court, instead focusing on a different issue related to stops based on anonymous tips. The Court determined that mentioning an argument made to the metropolitan court without presenting it to the district court does not sufficiently apprise the district court of the claimed error. The Court also noted the Defendant's failure to preserve the issue for appeal regarding the reconsideration of Contreras, finding the argument not viable due to lack of preservation and insufficient support from cited sources. Consequently, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement and affirmed the conviction based on these determinations (paras 3-6).