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 for first offense DWI after crashing into a parked vehicle and leaving the scene. A witness to the Defendant's driving arrived at the scene within ten to fifteen minutes, observing the Defendant slurring his speech, smelling strongly of alcohol, with an empty bottle of vodka on the passenger-side floor, and barely able to stand. The Defendant refused field sobriety tests three times, and his breath test results were significantly beyond the legal limit. A maintenance worker blocked the Defendant's vehicle to prevent him from leaving, and the police were called to the scene.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Brett R. Loveless, District Judge: Affirmed the sentencing order of the metropolitan court that convicted the Defendant for first offense DWI but incorrectly indicated that the Defendant was found guilty of aggravated DWI.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State failed to present sufficient evidence of a nexus proving that the Defendant was intoxicated at the time of driving and challenged the probable cause for arrest.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant was intoxicated at the time of driving.
• Whether there was probable cause for the Defendant's arrest for DWI.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the Defendant's conviction for first offense DWI.
• The Court remanded to the district court for correction of the judgment indicating that the metropolitan court convicted the Defendant for aggravated DWI.

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE, with JONATHAN B. SUTIN and STEPHEN G. FRENCH concurring, the Court found that the evidence presented, including a witness to the Defendant's driving, the Defendant's condition when found, and the results of the breath test, was sufficient to prove that the Defendant was intoxicated while driving. The Court distinguished this case from State v. Cotton, noting the presence of a witness and other evidence linking the Defendant's intoxication to the time of driving. The Court also held that the officer had probable cause to arrest the Defendant based on the totality of the circumstances known at the time of the arrest, including the observations of the Defendant's condition and the witness's account (paras 2-4).