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 March 29, 2014, around 11:30 p.m., New Mexico State Police responded to a dispatch call about a pickup truck stuck in the median on Interstate 10, attempting to back into traffic. Upon arrival, officers found the vehicle a couple of miles ahead from the reported location, stuck in the median with its hazard lights on. The defendant, Antonio Alvarez, was observed exiting the driver's seat of the vehicle, which was registered in his name. Officers noted a strong odor of alcohol on Alvarez, who appeared disheveled and confused. After failing field sobriety tests, Alvarez was arrested for DWI. A blood draw showed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.25 grams per 100 milliliters of blood. An open container of alcohol was also found in the vehicle (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his DWI conviction under theories of past driving or actual physical control. Contended that his reckless driving conviction was unsupported by evidence and that convictions for both DWI and reckless driving violated double jeopardy (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Conceded that the evidence for the reckless driving conviction was insufficient and agreed it should be vacated. Did not concede on the DWI conviction, arguing sufficient circumstantial evidence supported the conviction (paras 12, 23).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction for aggravated DWI under theories of past driving or actual physical control.
• Whether the conviction for reckless driving was supported by sufficient evidence.
• Whether convictions for both DWI and reckless driving violated double jeopardy principles.

Disposition

• Affirmed the defendant's conviction for aggravated DWI.
• Reversed the defendant's conviction for reckless driving.
• Remanded to the district court to vacate the reckless driving conviction and resentence the defendant accordingly (para 26).

Reasons

• The Court, with Judges Michael E. Vigil, J. Miles Hanisee, and Stephen G. French concurring, found sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the aggravated DWI conviction under the theory of past driving, citing the defendant's presence in the driver's seat, the vehicle's condition, and the defendant's admission of coming from Albuquerque and heading to El Paso. The Court did not need to address the actual physical control theory due to sufficient evidence on past driving but noted that evidence could also support this theory. The State's concession on the insufficiency of evidence for reckless driving was accepted, leading to the reversal of that conviction. The Court did not address the double jeopardy argument due to the reversal of the reckless driving conviction (paras 9-25).