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

• An officer stopped the Defendant's car at 2:40 a.m. due to an inoperable headlight. Upon the stop, the Defendant exhibited signs of intoxication, including bloodshot, watery eyes, slurred speech, and an odor of alcohol. The Defendant admitted to drinking, performed poorly on field sobriety tests, and refused to submit to chemical testing. The Defendant argued that an injured ankle could explain the poor performance on the field sobriety tests (para 5).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Charles W. Brown, District Judge: Affirmed the metro court conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI) (slightest degree).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for DWI, specifically challenging the sufficiency of the evidence regarding her ability to operate a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (para 3).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant abandoned the first issue raised in the appeal by not responding to the Court’s proposed disposition of the issue (para 2).
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI (para 3).

Disposition

• The first issue raised by the Defendant was deemed abandoned (para 2).
• The court affirmed the conviction for DWI, finding sufficient evidence to support the conviction (para 6).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring): The court found that the Defendant abandoned the first issue by not responding to the Court’s proposed disposition, citing State v. Salenas as precedent (para 2). Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence for the DWI conviction, the court applied a two-step review process, ultimately concluding that the evidence, including the Defendant's physical signs of intoxication, admission of drinking, and performance on field sobriety tests, was sufficient to support the conviction. The court specifically rejected the Defendant's argument that her injured ankle could explain her poor performance on the field sobriety tests, noting that many indications of impairment could not be attributed to the ankle (paras 3-5).