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 case involves the Defendant, Andres Valdez, who was arrested for DWI. The arrest occurred after an officer was dispatched to a domestic disturbance call, not a traffic violation. Upon arrival, the officer found the Defendant outside a vehicle, which was backed halfway out of a parking space, and the Defendant's wife lying on the curb. The officer observed signs of alcohol impairment in the Defendant, who admitted to drinking three beers and operating the vehicle. The Defendant's performance on the Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs) further evidenced impairment.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County: The district court affirmed the metropolitan court's judgment on on-record appeal against the Defendant for DWI.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the facts known to the officer did not provide probable cause for a DWI arrest and contended that there was insufficient evidence of impairment and that his breath alcohol content was .08 or higher.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the officer had probable cause to arrest the Defendant for DWI based on the totality of the evidence.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence of impairment due to alcohol and that the Defendant had a breath alcohol content of .08 or higher.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the Defendant's conviction for DWI.

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, Judge (Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge, and Linda M. Vanzi, Judge concurring):
  Probable Cause: The court found that the officer had probable cause to arrest the Defendant for DWI based on the totality of the evidence, including the Defendant's admission of drinking and operating the vehicle, signs of alcohol impairment observed by the officer, and the Defendant's performance on the FSTs (paras 3-6).
  Sufficiency of Evidence: The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI, both "impaired to the slightest degree" and "per se DWI," based on the Defendant's alcohol impairment, admissions of drinking and driving, the time elapsed between driving and the BAC tests, and the breath test results indicating a BAC of .14/.14 within one hour of driving (paras 7-10).