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, Crystal Goins, was convicted for driving while under the influence of liquor and/or drugs. The conviction followed after officers conducted an investigatory stop of her at Allsup’s, which was prompted by two 911 telephone calls.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop following two 911 telephone calls.
• Appellee: The State, through its representatives, presumably argued in favor of the legality of the investigatory stop and the subsequent conviction, although specific arguments are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of the Defendant at Allsup’s following two 911 telephone calls.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant’s conviction for driving while under the influence of liquor and/or drugs.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, with J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, and EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge concurring: The Court considered the Defendant's memorandum in opposition to the notice of proposed disposition but remained unpersuaded by the arguments presented. The Defendant did not provide new facts, authority, or argument sufficient to challenge the Court's initial stance. The Court referenced previous case law indicating that the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law. The repetition of earlier arguments without presenting new evidence or legal error does not fulfill this requirement. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Defendant’s conviction based on the reasons stated in their notice of proposed disposition and the additional considerations outlined in the memorandum opinion (paras 1-3).