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 driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DWI) under the impaired-to-the-slightest-degree standard (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Benjamin Chavez, District Judge, March 23, 2016: Affirmed the conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DWI) under the impaired-to-the-slightest-degree standard.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his DWI convictions, reiterating arguments previously made in his statement of issues below (paras 2-3).
• Appellee (State): Argued that the district court's memorandum opinion, which addressed the sufficiency of the evidence, was correct and should be adopted by the Court of Appeals (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI under the impaired-to-the-slightest-degree standard.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's affirmance of the Defendant's DWI conviction (para 5).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, in an opinion authored by Judge J. Miles Hanisee and concurred by Judges James J. Wechsler and Michael D. Bustamante, found the district court's memorandum opinion to be correct. The appellate court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's memorandum in opposition, noting that it largely reiterated arguments previously considered and rejected. The Court emphasized the need for parties opposing summary disposition to specifically point out errors in fact and/or law, which the Defendant failed to do. Consequently, the Court concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction based on the reasons set forth in the district court's opinion (paras 2-4).