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 after a jury trial in metropolitan court for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, failure to maintain lane, and open container (para 1).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Cristina T. Jaramillo, District Judge: Affirmed the convictions of the Defendant for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, failure to maintain lane, and open container (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued against the convictions, maintaining the same issues in the appeal to the Court of Appeals as were presented in the on-record appeal to the district court (paras 2-4).
• Appellee (State): Supported the affirmance of the Defendant's convictions, as indicated by the Court's proposal to agree with the district court's factual presentation, analysis, and conclusion (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in affirming the Defendant's convictions for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, failure to maintain lane, and open container (paras 2-5).

Disposition

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

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge (Jonathan B. Sutin, Judge, and J. Miles Hanisee, Judge, concurring): The Court issued a calendar notice proposing summary affirmance based on the district court's thorough, well-reasoned memorandum opinion. The Defendant failed to present any specific objections to the facts or the law as presented by the district court, merely restating facts and arguments already presented without pointing out any specific errors. Consequently, the Court concluded that the Defendant did not meet his burden on appeal and affirmed the convictions for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed disposition and the district court's memorandum opinion (paras 1-5).