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 arrested for DWI per se and for driving without headlights. The arrest was based on observations such as bloodshot and watery eyes, the smell of alcohol, admission of drinking before driving, mixed results on Standard Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs), and driving at night without headlights (paras 1, 3).

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court: Convicted the Defendant of DWI per se and no headlights.
• District Court of Bernalillo County, Ross C. Sanchez, District Judge: Affirmed the metropolitan court's convictions following an on-record review.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Argued that the Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals from a district court’s on-record review of a metropolitan court decision (para 2).
• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the arresting officer lacked probable cause for the DWI arrest and that the officer’s action of handing her a phone book did not satisfy the requirement of providing a reasonable opportunity to arrange for an independent chemical test (paras 3, 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to hear appeals from a district court’s on-record review of a metropolitan court decision.
• Whether there was probable cause to arrest the Defendant for DWI.
• Whether the Defendant was given a reasonable opportunity to arrange for an independent chemical test as required by law.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals held that it has jurisdiction to consider the Defendant’s appeal.
• The Court affirmed the part of the district court's decision that found probable cause supported the Defendant’s arrest for DWI.
• The Court reversed and remanded the part concerning the Defendant not being given a reasonable opportunity to arrange for an independent chemical test.

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Roderick T. Kennedy, J., concurring):
  The Court rejected the State's argument regarding the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction, citing precedent that the Court has jurisdiction over appeals in all criminal actions except those involving a sentence of death or life imprisonment (para 2).
  On the issue of probable cause for the DWI arrest, the Court found that the combination of the Defendant's physical condition, admission of drinking, performance on SFSTs, and driving without headlights at night provided sufficient probable cause (para 3).
  Regarding the Defendant's opportunity to arrange for an independent chemical test, the Court agreed with the Defendant, citing State v. Chakerian, which supports the Defendant’s argument that merely handing her a phone book did not satisfy the legal requirement for providing a reasonable opportunity to arrange for such a test (para 5).