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

• A criminal complaint was filed against the Defendant for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (second offense), driving with an open container of alcohol, and driving with a suspended license. After a motion to suppress was denied in magistrate court, a plea and disposition agreement was entered, allowing the Defendant to plead guilty to a lesser charge while reserving the right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress. The Defendant completed her sentence during the appeal process (paras 2, 10).

Procedural History

• Magistrate Court, January 15, 2009: Defendant's motion to suppress was denied, and a plea agreement was entered.
• District Court, February 17, 2010: The appeal to the district court resulted in an order remanding the case to the magistrate court without a clear decision on the motion to suppress.
• Court of Appeals, August 23, 2010: The appeal was dismissed due to the absence of a final written order on the motion to suppress.
• District Court, August 25, 2010: The case was remanded to the magistrate court for execution of the sentence.
• Magistrate Court, October 25, 2011: A new judgment and sentence was filed.
• District Court: The second appeal was dismissed on the basis that the Defendant had ample opportunity to perfect her appeal previously.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the motion to suppress was improperly denied and sought appellate review of this decision.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that the appeal was moot due to the completion of the Defendant's sentence and argued against the Defendant's appeal on the merits of the motion to suppress.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over the appeal.
• Whether the appeal is moot given the Defendant has served her sentence.
• Whether the Defendant’s motion to suppress was improperly denied.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals held that it has jurisdiction over the appeal, the appeal is not moot, and affirmed the denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress (paras 7, 11, 24).

Reasons

• Per VIGIL, J., with BUSTAMANTE, J., and GARCIA, J., concurring:
  Jurisdiction: The Court applied the conclusive presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel from State v. Duran to establish jurisdiction over the appeal despite procedural missteps by the Defendant's counsel (paras 7-9).
  Mootness: The Court determined the appeal was not moot despite the Defendant having served her sentence, due to potential future collateral consequences of the conviction (para 11).
  Motion to Suppress: The Court found that the investigatory stop of the Defendant's truck was supported by reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment, based on the totality of the circumstances and the information provided by a citizen informant to the police officer (paras 12-24).