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, Cynthia De-Aquinolopez, was convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DWI) following a bench trial in the metropolitan court. The conviction was based on breath test results that fell within an allowable range of error of 0.07 to 0.09, which the Defendant argued could indicate a true breath score below the per se violation threshold of 0.08.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Briana H. Zamora, District Judge: Affirmed the conviction of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DWI).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support her per se DWI conviction because the breath test results were within the allowable range of error and could be consistent with a true breath score below 0.08. Contended that without reporting the confidence interval, it was unfair to find her guilty of a per se violation when the true probability that her breath score was at or above 0.08 was unknown. Relied on State v. King for the assertion that a defendant may challenge the reliability of the breath test result with expert testimony after the results have been admitted in evidence, but no such testimony was presented in this case.
• Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's per se DWI conviction given the breath test results fell within an allowable range of error.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's DWI conviction.

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE, with LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, and DANIEL J. GALLEGOS, Judge concurring:
  The Court considered the Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence regarding her DWI conviction, specifically the argument that the breath test results were within an allowable range of error and could indicate a true breath score below 0.08. The Court referred to the district court's memorandum opinion, which addressed the Defendant's reliance on State v. King and the absence of expert testimony to challenge the reliability of the breath test result. The Court found no errors in its notice of proposed disposition and affirmed the conviction based on the reasons set forth in its notice of proposed disposition and the district court's memorandum opinion (paras 1-4).