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, Alma Williams, was convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (first offense) and speeding. These convictions were the result of a process that began in the metropolitan court and were subsequently affirmed by the district court.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Stan Whitaker, District Judge: Affirmed the metropolitan court’s convictions of the Defendant for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, first offense, and speeding.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued against the convictions, maintaining the same arguments previously made in the docketing statement and the statement of issues filed with the district court in her on-record appeal.
• Appellee (State): Supported the affirmance of the Defendant's convictions, as indicated by the proposed summary disposition to affirm the convictions without raising new arguments or issues.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in affirming the metropolitan court’s convictions of the Defendant for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, first offense, and speeding.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, first offense, and speeding.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with Michael D. Bustamante and Michael E. Vigil concurring, the Court of Appeals decided to affirm the Defendant's convictions. The decision was based on the Defendant's failure to present any new arguments or issues that could persuade the Court to reconsider the proposed adoption of the district court’s memorandum opinion. The Court of Appeals had previously proposed to affirm the Defendant’s convictions and adopt the district court’s memorandum opinion, which was described as thorough and well-reasoned. The Defendant's memorandum in opposition did not introduce new arguments or issues beyond those already considered and addressed in the notice of proposed disposition and the district court’s memorandum opinion (paras 1-3).