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 while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (DWI). The conviction was based, in part, on the results of a blood draw conducted by an emergency medical technician (EMT) at the San Juan Regional Medical Center. The Defendant appealed the conviction on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, among other issues, arguing that the trial counsel failed to file a motion to suppress the blood draw results (para 1-2).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, John A. Dean, District Judge, November 8, 2018.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress the blood draw results, as the blood was drawn by an EMT, which was contrary to established legal precedent that EMTs are not authorized to draw blood for determining alcohol or drug content under the Implied Consent Act (para 2).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from the counsel's error because there was sufficient evidence to convict the Defendant under the "impaired to the slightest degree" theory, even if the blood test results were suppressed. The State cited evidence of the Defendant's slurred speech, odor of alcohol, admission to drinking, an open can of beer in his car, poor performance on field sobriety tests, and a presumptive breath test indicating the presence of alcohol (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress the blood draw results constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Whether the Defendant was prejudiced by the blood draw results being admitted into evidence.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on the Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim (para 5).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, with concurrence from MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, and STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge, the Court proposed to remand the case based on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim due to trial counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress the blood draw results. This decision was influenced by the precedent set in State v. Garcia, which held that EMTs are not authorized to draw blood for the purpose of determining alcohol or drug content under the Implied Consent Act, rendering such test results inadmissible. Despite the State's argument that there was sufficient evidence to convict the Defendant under the "impaired to the slightest degree" theory, the Court concluded that the Defendant could have been prejudiced by the admission of the blood draw results showing a blood alcohol content of 0.14, especially considering the legal precedent that excludes such evidence when improperly obtained (paras 2-4).