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 found in the driver’s seat of a parked van at a gas station after a report of a possible drunk driver. Upon arrival, a deputy observed the Defendant exhibiting signs of intoxication, including red, bloodshot, and watery eyes, and a strong smell of alcohol. The Defendant had car keys in his pocket, performed poorly on field sobriety tests, and later tested with a blood alcohol concentration of .28. The Defendant argued that he was not in control of the vehicle and had not driven it.
Procedural History
- District Court of San Juan County: The Defendant was convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (DWI) under Section 66-8-102(C)(1) (2008). However, the judgment and sentence incorrectly reflected a conviction under Section 66-8-102(D)(1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the DWI conviction, specifically asserting that there was no evidence he was in control of or had driven the vehicle. Cited State v. Franklin and State v. Boyer to support the argument.
- State-Appellee: Maintained that the evidence, including the Defendant’s presence in the driver’s seat, possession of the keys, and signs of intoxication, was sufficient to support the conviction. Agreed that the judgment and sentence should be corrected to reflect the proper statutory provision.
Legal Issues
- Was there substantial evidence to support the Defendant’s conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs?
- Should the judgment and sentence be corrected to reflect the proper statutory provision under which the Defendant was convicted?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s conviction for DWI under Section 66-8-102(C)(1) (2008).
- The Court reversed and remanded the case for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment and sentence to reflect the proper statutory provision.
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Sutin and Robles JJ. concurring):
The Court held that substantial evidence supported the Defendant’s conviction. The standard of review required the Court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and to resolve all conflicts in favor of upholding the jury’s decision. The jury could reasonably infer that the Defendant was in actual physical control of the vehicle based on his presence in the driver’s seat and possession of the keys, even though the keys were not in the ignition and the vehicle was not observed in motion. The Court cited precedent, including State v. Sparks and Boone v. State, to support the conclusion that “operating” a vehicle includes being in actual physical control.
The Court also noted that the judgment and sentence incorrectly reflected a conviction under Section 66-8-102(D)(1) (blood alcohol concentration of .16 or more), whereas the jury had convicted the Defendant under Section 66-8-102(C)(1) (blood alcohol concentration of .08 or more). Both parties agreed that this error required correction. The Court reversed and remanded for the limited purpose of amending the judgment and sentence accordingly.