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-Appellant, Andrew Ramirez, was convicted for aggravated driving while intoxicated. The conviction was based on evidence presented at trial, which Ramirez contested on appeal, arguing insufficiency of the evidence, particularly questioning the inferences drawn by the jury regarding impairment and an officer's equivocal testimony about whether Ramirez might have asked to take a breath test after initially refusing.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Charles W. Brown, District Judge: Affirmed metropolitan court conviction for aggravated driving while intoxicated.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the conviction. Specifically, contended that the jury could have drawn different inferences from the facts supporting impairment and highlighted an officer's equivocal testimony regarding Ramirez's potential request to take a breath test after initially refusing.
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support Ramirez's conviction for aggravated driving while intoxicated beyond a reasonable doubt.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court order, which upheld Ramirez's metropolitan court conviction for aggravated driving while intoxicated.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, concurring): The Court considered Ramirez's arguments against the sufficiency of the evidence but determined that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient to support the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that it is not their role to reweigh evidence or substitute their judgment for that of the fact finder as long as there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict. Ramirez's arguments, which essentially requested the Court to reweigh the evidence, were not persuasive enough to overturn the conviction.