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 aggravated driving while intoxicated (DWI) for the fifth time after a jury trial. He appealed the conviction, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, John Dean, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated DWI (fifth offense) and claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of breath alcohol test results, failing to file a motion to suppress the investigatory stop, and other alleged deficiencies.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The State's arguments are not directly summarized in the decision, but it can be inferred that the State argued for the affirmation of the conviction based on the sufficiency of the evidence and the effectiveness of counsel.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated DWI (fifth offense).
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for aggravated DWI (fifth offense).

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J. (Michael E. Vigil, J., and Linda M. Vanzi, J., concurring):
  The court reviewed the Defendant's challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support his conviction for aggravated DWI (fifth offense). The Defendant did not effectively challenge the evidence reviewed in the court's second notice of proposed summary disposition, leading to the affirmation of his conviction on this ground.
  Regarding the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court analyzed the Defendant's allegations against the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel, which requires showing that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the Defendant. The court found that the Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance because he did not demonstrate how his counsel's performance was deficient or how it prejudiced his case. The Defendant's list of alleged deficiencies was not developed in the record below, and without a record, the court could not consider his claim on direct appeal. The court also noted that the procedural posture of a cited case (Varela v. State) did not warrant reconsideration of their proposed disposition in this matter.
  The court concluded that the Defendant's conviction should be affirmed for the reasons stated above and those set forth in their second notice of proposed summary disposition. The court also noted that the Defendant could pursue his ineffective assistance claims through a habeas corpus proceeding.