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

• On September 15, 2013, Officer Beau Johnston found Defendant Fernando Garcia in a parked car with a flat tire on the shoulder of I-10, outside of Deming, New Mexico. The officer observed signs of intoxication and arrested Garcia after a breath test showed an alcohol concentration of 0.18. Garcia was initially charged with third-offense aggravated driving while under the influence but was later charged as a fifth-time offender due to four prior DWIs (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Luna County, December 16, 2014: Jury found Defendant guilty of fifth-offense aggravated DWI and other related charges (para 7).
• District Court of Luna County, February 2, 2015: Defendant was sentenced to eighteen months incarceration followed by a one-year parole period for the aggravated DWI, with sentences for the remaining offenses running concurrently (para 8).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the district court erred in sentencing him as a fifth-time DWI offender, there was insufficient evidence to support his DWI conviction, and he was arrested without probable cause (para 1).
• State: Contended that Defendant and his counsel effectively stipulated to his four prior DWIs, which obviated the need for documentation, and argued for an eighteen-month incarceration sentence for the DWI to run consecutively with the sentences for the remaining traffic offense convictions (paras 9, 17-18).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in sentencing Defendant as a fifth-time DWI offender.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s DWI conviction.
• Whether Defendant was arrested without probable cause.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision on all counts (para 1).

Reasons

• HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge (JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge, DANIEL J. GALLEGOS, Judge concurring): The court found that the exchange between defense counsel and the prosecutor amounted to a stipulation that Defendant was subject to sentencing for a fifth DWI, thus relieving the State from proving the four previous DWI convictions (paras 17-20). The court also determined that sufficient evidence supported Defendant’s conviction of aggravated DWI under the theory of actual physical control with the intent to drive, based on the totality of the circumstances including the keys being in the ignition, Defendant sitting in the driver's seat, and the vehicle being operable (paras 22-27). Lastly, the court declined to address Defendant's argument regarding the lack of probable cause for his arrest due to failure to preserve the issue for appeal (para 33).