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 entered a conditional plea to a DUI charge. No trial occurred, and consequently, no testimony was received from the Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) officer involved in the case.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Kenneth Martinez, District Judge, affirming a sentencing order entered in metropolitan court following the Defendant's conditional plea to a DUI charge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the metropolitan court should have suppressed the testimony of a DRE officer.
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the appellate issue raised by the Defendant regarding the suppression of the DRE officer's testimony was preserved below.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction.

Reasons

• Per Linda M. Vanzi, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Cynthia A. Fry, J., concurring): The Court decided to affirm the Defendant's conviction because the issue raised by the Defendant regarding the suppression of the DRE officer's testimony was not preserved at the lower court level. Since no trial took place and no testimony was received from the DRE officer, there was no record for the Court to review to make an informed decision on the admissibility of the testimony. The Defendant's memorandum in opposition did not demonstrate that the issue was preserved below or how the Court could assess the admissibility of testimony that was never received (paras 1-3).