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 aggravated driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (DWI) and speeding, following a bench trial in metropolitan court (para 1).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Alisa A. Hart, District Judge: Affirmed the convictions for aggravated DWI and speeding following a bench trial in metropolitan court (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State had a duty to provide the officer’s personal cell phone and/or cell phone records and contended that his objection to a “discovery violation” was preserved (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the State had a duty to provide the officer’s personal cell phone and/or cell phone records as part of discovery (para 2).
• Whether the Defendant preserved an objection to a discovery violation under Brady v. Maryland (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s conviction for aggravated DWI and speeding (para 5).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, J. (JENNIFER L. ATTREP, J., and MEGAN P. DUFFY, J., concurring): The Court proposed to agree with the district court’s factual presentation, analysis, and conclusion, adopting the district court’s memorandum opinion for purposes of this appeal. The Court found that the Defendant failed to establish a Brady violation and did not preserve or identify any other argument related to a duty to disclose the officer’s personal cell phone records. Furthermore, the Defendant did not argue the appropriate factors for dismissal or propose an appropriate remedy. The Court also noted that Rule 5-501 is a rule of criminal procedure for the district courts, not the metropolitan court, and the Defendant’s assertions did not demonstrate error in the district court’s analysis affirming the decision of the metropolitan court. The Court concluded that the Defendant did not assert any fact, law, or argument that persuaded them that the district court’s analysis and their adoption thereof was erroneous (paras 2-5).