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 in the metropolitan court for driving while intoxicated (DWI), with a jury trial verdict finding the Defendant guilty based on a breath alcohol concentration (BAC) of eight one-hundredths (0.08). The evidence presented at trial, however, showed the Defendant's BAC to be nine one-hundredths (0.09) (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed the metropolitan court's conviction of the Defendant for DWI.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the jury's verdict form, which found him guilty of driving with a BAC of 0.08 without including the words "or more," did not support the verdict since the evidence showed his BAC was 0.09 (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the jury's verdict form, which specified the Defendant's BAC as 0.08 without the phrase "or more," supports the conviction given the evidence presented showed a BAC of 0.09 (para 2).

Disposition

• The appeal from the Defendant challenging the district court’s order affirming his DWI conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (para 4).

Reasons

• Per Julie J. Vargas, J., with Jennifer L. Attrep, J., and Briana H. Zamora, J., concurring: The Court considered the Defendant's appeal and the memorandum in opposition to the proposed disposition affirming the conviction. The Court found the district court's memorandum opinion, which the Defendant challenged, to be thorough and well-reasoned, adequately presenting the facts, arguments, and legal analysis. Despite the Defendant's contention regarding the specificity of the BAC level on the verdict form, the Court noted the Defendant's concession that a BAC of 0.08 is arguably encompassed within a BAC of 0.09. The Defendant failed to present any new facts, authority, or persuasive argument to challenge the proposed summary disposition. Consequently, the Court affirmed the conviction based on the reasons stated in its notice of proposed disposition and the district court's analysis (paras 1-4).