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 case involves the Defendant, Kevin Lopez, who was convicted by bench trial for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (first offense). The conviction was based on evidence including the Defendant's performance on field sobriety tests and the circumstances surrounding his decision to drive a vehicle under conditions that suggested impairment.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Charles W. Brown, District Judge, affirming Defendant's conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (first offense) (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant Kevin Lopez): Argued that the verdict was not supported by substantial evidence and that the conviction violated his constitutional right to due process and a fair trial. He also presented evidence suggesting other reasons for his poor performance on the field sobriety tests, such as other vehicles' lights, distractions, his injured leg, cold weather, distracting noise of traffic, and wearing boots (paras 3, 5-6).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Supported the district court's affirmance of the conviction, arguing that the Defendant's due process argument was undeveloped and unpreserved and that the conviction was supported by substantial evidence (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the verdict was supported by substantial evidence that Defendant drove under the influence of alcohol.
• Whether the conviction violated Defendant's constitutional right to due process and a fair trial.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant’s conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (first offense) (para 8).

Reasons

• Per Wechsler, J., with Kennedy, J., and Hanisee, J., concurring:
  The Court noted that in response to its notice of proposed disposition, the Defendant's counsel did not effectively point out specific errors in fact or law, instead reiterating previously presented material without indicating contradictions or responses to the notice of proposed disposition (para 2).
  The Court found the Defendant's due process argument, to the extent it was separate from the substantial evidence argument, to be undeveloped and unpreserved. The Defendant did not respond to the Court's proposed disposition regarding this argument, leading to its conclusion as set forth in the notice of proposed disposition (para 3).
  Regarding the substantial evidence argument, the Court referred to its notice of proposed disposition and the district court’s memorandum opinion, reiterating that conflicting testimony is not a basis for reversal and that it was for the district court to weigh the evidence and assess credibility. The appellate court does not reweigh evidence on appeal (paras 4-7).
  The Court emphasized that it was within the province of the trial court to determine the credibility of the officer's testimony and weigh the evidence, rejecting the Defendant's argument that the officer's testimony was not credible because he was not a medical professional and had incorrectly remembered a few things during his testimony (para 7).