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, Steve George Martinez, was convicted for aggravated DWI (eighth or subsequent offense), two counts of resisting, evading or obstructing an officer, and reckless driving. The convictions stemmed from an incident where the Defendant refused to pull over after being signaled by Officer Brown, fled in his vehicle after having his tires flattened, continued to drive on his rims, then stopped the truck, and ran away on the highway in an attempt to flee from police (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Christina Pete Argyres, District Judge, October 16, 2018: Convicted for aggravated DWI (eighth or subsequent offense), two counts of resisting, evading or obstructing an officer, and reckless driving.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the docketing statement demonstrated error, specifically raising double jeopardy challenges to his convictions for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. Additionally, argued against the sufficiency of the evidence for the aggravated DWI conviction and the denial of the suppression of Officer Frazier’s show-up identification (paras 1, 6-9).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Informed the Court that it would not oppose the proposal to reverse and remand for the district court to vacate one of the Defendant’s convictions for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer due to a violation of double jeopardy (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's convictions for two counts of resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer violate double jeopardy.
• Whether the district court erred by denying the suppression of Officer Frazier’s show-up identification of the Defendant.
• Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated DWI.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for the district court to vacate one of the Defendant’s convictions for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer due to a violation of double jeopardy (para 2).

Reasons

• VANZI, Chief Judge, HANISEE, Judge, and BOHNHOFF, Judge, concurring:
  The Court agreed with the Defendant that his convictions for two counts of resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer under different subsections of the statute violated double jeopardy, based on the Court's opinion in State v. LeFebre. It was determined that the Defendant's actions were unitary conduct with the singular purpose of evading officers, mirroring the circumstances in LeFebre (paras 3-4).
  Regarding the show-up identification by Officer Frazier, the Court held that this identification was not necessary to establish the Defendant’s identity, given the testimony of other officers and the circumstances that flowed from the Defendant driving through the DWI checkpoint. The Court found no reversible error in the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress this evidence (para 7).
  On the sufficiency of the evidence for the aggravated DWI conviction, the Court held that the evidence, including the Defendant's extreme efforts to avoid contact with police and capture, supported an inference of a consciousness of guilt. The Court found the evidence sufficient to support the conviction (paras 8-10).