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 in metropolitan court for driving while intoxicated and careless driving. The case centers around the denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the conviction for careless driving.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Judith K. Nakamura, District Judge: Affirmed the metropolitan court convictions for driving while intoxicated and careless driving.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress because the facts known to the officer did not establish probable cause for believing the Defendant had been driving while intoxicated. Also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for careless driving.
• Appellee (State): Defended the district court's decision, maintaining that the officer had probable cause for the arrest and that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for careless driving.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress based on the probable cause for believing the Defendant had been driving while intoxicated.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for careless driving.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's on-record affirmance of the Defendant's metropolitan court convictions for driving while intoxicated and careless driving.

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge (Linda M. Vanzi, Judge, J. Miles Hanisee, Judge concurring):
  The Court found no merit in the Defendant's arguments against the denial of the motion to suppress. It held that probable cause determinations consider the totality of circumstances known to the officer, rejecting the Defendant's "divide-and-conquer" analysis of the facts (para 2).
  Regarding the sufficiency of evidence for the careless driving conviction, the Court concluded that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the district court's decision, there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The Defendant's memorandum in opposition did not provide new facts or authority to persuade the Court otherwise (para 3).
  The Court affirmed the convictions for the reasons stated in its notice of proposed summary disposition and the memorandum opinion (para 4).