AI Generated Opinion Summaries

Decision Information

Decision Content

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, Diana Brown, was convicted by the metropolitan court for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and speeding. These convictions were subsequently affirmed by the district court.

Procedural History

  • Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Charles Brown, District Judge: Affirmed the metropolitan court's convictions for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and speeding.

Parties' Submissions

  • Appellant (Defendant): Argued against the convictions for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and speeding, as presented in her docketing statement and the statement of issues filed with the district court in her on-record appeal.
  • Appellee (State): Supported the affirmance of the Defendant's convictions, as indicated by the proposed adoption of the district court's memorandum opinion by the Court of Appeals.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the district court erred in affirming the metropolitan court’s convictions of the Defendant for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and speeding.

Disposition

  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and speeding.

Reasons

  • Per Michael D. Bustamante, J. (Jonathan B. Sutin, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring):
    The Court of Appeals decided to affirm the Defendant's convictions after considering the Defendant's memorandum in opposition and finding no new arguments or issues that would persuade the Court to reconsider the proposed adoption of the district court's memorandum opinion. The Court referred to its notice of proposed disposition and the district court's memorandum opinion for responses to the Defendant's arguments, indicating that all arguments made by the Defendant had been previously addressed and found unpersuasive (paras 2-4).
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.