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, Amanda Perez, was convicted for driving while intoxicated (DWI) and for failure to maintain a traffic lane. The conviction was based on evidence including speeding, failing to maintain her lane of traffic, the presence of an odor of alcohol, the Defendant's admission to drinking, and her performance on field sobriety tests (FSTs) and breath alcohol test results.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Alisa Ann Hadfield, District Judge: Affirmance of conviction for DWI and failure to maintain a traffic lane.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that (1) the officer lacked probable cause to arrest her for DWI, (2) the State failed to lay an adequate foundation for the admission of the breath alcohol test results, and (3) there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction.
• Appellee (State): Defended the conviction on the grounds that the district court's memorandum opinion, which addressed the same issues raised in this appeal, thoroughly detailed the relevant facts and correctly set forth the applicable standards of review and relevant law.

Legal Issues

• Whether the officer had probable cause to arrest the Defendant for DWI.
• Whether the State laid an adequate foundation for the admission of the breath alcohol test results.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s affirmance of the Defendant's conviction for DWI and failure to maintain a traffic lane.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, Judge (Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge, and M. Monica Zamora, Judge, concurring):
  The Court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's arguments against her DWI conviction. Regarding probable cause for the DWI arrest, the Court found that the officer had ample information, including the Defendant's speeding, failure to maintain her lane, the odor of alcohol, and her admission to drinking, which supported his belief that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol (para 3). The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that her performance on the FSTs could be attributed to factors other than alcohol consumption, citing State v. Granillo-Macias and State v. Chandler to support the sufficiency of probable cause (para 3).
  On the issue of the breath alcohol test results' admission, the Defendant conceded that the controlling authority, State v. Hobbs, was dispositive but argued it was wrongly decided. The Court declined to revisit Hobbs, effectively upholding the admission of the breath test results (para 4).
  Finally, the Court addressed the Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of evidence supporting her DWI per se conviction, based on her breath test results being a .09 and the officer's testimony that the results can vary up to .02 points. The Court found this argument unconvincing, noting that the district court's opinion had fully addressed the issue and the Defendant had not presented any compelling argument or authority to counter the proposed disposition (para 5).
  In conclusion, the Court affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons set forth in the district court’s opinion, in the Court's notice of proposed summary disposition, and in this Opinion (para 6).