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

• On April 19, 2007, around 11:00 p.m., a police officer observed the Defendant driving a white BMW at a high rate of speed, changing lanes multiple times, and crossing lanes without maintaining proper control. The officer had to accelerate to approximately 100 miles per hour to catch up with the Defendant. Upon initiating a traffic stop, the Defendant exhibited signs of impairment, including bloodshot and watery eyes, a slight odor of alcohol, and poor coordination. The Defendant admitted to consuming alcohol and exhibited poor performance on a field sobriety test. A breath test indicated a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .06.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Stan Whitaker, District Judge: Affirmance of the Defendant's conviction for DWI and careless driving following a bench trial in the metropolitan court.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI, emphasizing the Defendant's dangerous driving behavior, physical signs of impairment, and the results of the breath test.
• Defendant-Appellant (William Marchiondo): Contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his DWI conviction and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, particularly highlighting the lack of a jury trial request by his counsel.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI.
• Whether the Defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to request a jury trial.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the Defendant's convictions for DWI and careless driving.

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Cynthia A. Fry, with Judges Michael D. Bustamante and Jonathan B. Sutin concurring, found substantial evidence supporting the Defendant's DWI conviction. This conclusion was based on the Defendant's erratic driving, physical signs of alcohol consumption, and the results of the field sobriety and breath tests, which collectively indicated impairment. The Court also addressed the Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, noting that the proper remedy for such a claim, based on facts not present in the record, would be a habeas corpus proceeding rather than direct appeal. The Court emphasized that each DWI case stands on its own facts and that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient to support the conviction. The Court further noted that the Defendant's challenge to the admissibility of the breath alcohol test (BAT) results was without merit, as the trial court had discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence.