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 driving while intoxicated. He argued that his statutory right to an independent blood test was not complied with by the officer.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the officer did not comply with his statutory right to an independent blood test and relied on previous arguments regarding the court's proposed partial affirmance.
• Appellee (State): Concurred with the court's proposed disposition on both the partial summary affirmance and partial summary reversal and remand.

Legal Issues

• Whether the officer complied with the Defendant's statutory right to an independent blood test.
• Whether the denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds should be reversed and remanded for the application of the new district court six-month rule.

Disposition

• Affirmed in part, regarding the compliance with the Defendant's statutory right to an independent blood test.
• Reversed and remanded in part, regarding the denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds for the application of the new district court six-month rule.

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, with JONATHAN B. SUTIN and CYNTHIA A. FRY concurring:
  The court was not persuaded by the Defendant's arguments regarding the compliance with his statutory right to an independent blood test, affirming this part of the decision. The court referenced State v. Ibarra to support its decision, indicating that a party opposing summary disposition is required to specifically point out errors in fact and/or law, which the Defendant failed to do convincingly.
  Regarding the speedy trial issue, the court proposed to reverse and remand the denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss based on the application of the new district court six-month rule, Rule 5-604 NMRA, which is applicable to this appeal. The State concurred with this proposed disposition. The court instructed the district court to apply the factors set forth in the new rule, considering this case as one of concurrent jurisdiction that would be subject to the new rule.