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 of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, first offense (DWI). The conviction was based on the Defendant's arrest, which the Defendant later contested, arguing that the totality of circumstances, including his performance on alternate field sobriety tests, did not support his arrest due to the dissipation of reasonable suspicion (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed the metropolitan court’s judgment and sentencing order convicting the Defendant of DWI.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the totality of the circumstances, including his performance on alternate field sobriety tests, did not support his arrest due to the dissipation of reasonable suspicion (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether there was probable cause for the Defendant's arrest for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentencing order convicting the Defendant of DWI (para 4).

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, Chief Judge, concurred by Jennifer L. Attrep, Judge, and Jacqueline R. Medina, Judge: The Court considered the Defendant's memorandum in opposition but found it unpersuasive, affirming the conviction based on the detailed facts set forth in the district court’s order and the facts as alleged in the docketing statement. The Court noted that the Defendant did not present any new facts, authority, or argument beyond what was articulated in his docketing statement and failed to specifically point out errors in fact or law in the Court's notice of proposed disposition. The decision to affirm was also based on the principles that the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law and that repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement (paras 1-4).