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 arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (DWI) (fourth offense), careless driving, and driving on a suspended or revoked license after flipping a Yamaha Rhino ATV while making a U-turn on a county road. The State later amended the charge to DWI (fourth offense) based on the Defendant having three prior DWI convictions.

Procedural History

• District Court of Otero County, January 27, 2009: Amended complaint charging Defendant with DWI (fourth offense) and two non-DWI offenses.
• Magistrate Court, March 4, 2009: Defendant's motion to dismiss charges was denied.
• Magistrate Court, April 6, 2009: State filed a nolle prosequi and later obtained a grand jury indictment on April 28, 2009, for the same crimes charged in the amended complaint.
• District Court: Defendant filed motions to quash the indictment, dismiss based on the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Act, and dismiss for failure to comply with the 182-day rule. All motions were denied.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the prosecutor improperly dismissed the case in magistrate court to refile in district court, was wrongfully charged under Section 66-8-102(A) for driving an off-highway vehicle, and that the district court should have granted her motion to quash the grand jury indictment.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that driving an off-highway vehicle on a public road while intoxicated constitutes a violation of Section 66-8-102(A), and the Defendant's remaining issues were without merit.

Legal Issues

• Whether the prosecutor was improperly allowed to dismiss the case in magistrate court and refile in district court.
• Whether the prosecution wrongfully charged the Defendant under Section 66-8-102(A) for driving an off-highway vehicle.
• Whether the district court should have granted the Defendant's motion to quash the grand jury indictment.

Disposition

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

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin (Cynthia A. Fry and Roderick T. Kennedy concurring), the Court held that driving an off-highway vehicle on a public road while intoxicated is a violation of Section 66-8-102(A). The Court found the Defendant's remaining issues to be without merit, including the argument that the prosecutor improperly dismissed and refiled the case to circumvent the 182-day rule, and the claim that the Defendant should have been charged under a more specific misdemeanor offense found in the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Act. The Court also rejected the Defendant's motion to quash the indictment, stating that the Defendant failed to establish bad faith on the part of the prosecutor. Roderick T. Kennedy, in a special concurrence, agreed with the majority but provided an alternative rationale regarding the 182-day rule, suggesting that the magistrate court had no jurisdiction to try the felony charge, making the 182-day rule inapplicable.