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 of aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer, concealing identity, and speeding. The charges arose from an incident where the Defendant attempted to evade police by driving recklessly through a residential area, running stop signs, and driving in the wrong lane. The Defendant also claimed to have entered into an unwritten plea agreement with the prosecution, which he alleged was not honored.
Procedural History
- District Court of Otero County: The Defendant was convicted of aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer, concealing identity, and speeding.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in refusing to enforce an alleged unwritten plea agreement, claiming he provided information to the State in exchange for leniency. He also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for aggravated fleeing and speeding, asserting that no actual person’s life was endangered and that the radar evidence for speeding was unreliable.
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the alleged plea agreement was unenforceable as it was not approved by the court and the Defendant failed to demonstrate detrimental reliance. The Plaintiff also argued that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, as the Defendant’s reckless driving endangered lives and the radar evidence was admissible.
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in refusing to enforce the alleged unwritten plea agreement.
- Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer.
- Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for speeding.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions.
Reasons
Per Kennedy J. (Wechsler and Vanzi JJ. concurring):
Plea Agreement: The court held that the alleged unwritten plea agreement was unenforceable because it was not approved by the district court, and the Defendant failed to demonstrate detrimental reliance or prejudice. The evidence showed that the Defendant provided information to law enforcement before any agreement was finalized, and the agents explicitly stated they lacked authority to make binding agreements.
Aggravated Fleeing: The court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The Defendant’s actions, including running stop signs, driving in the wrong lane, and creating a risk of harm in a residential area, demonstrated reckless conduct that endangered lives, even if no specific person was identified as being at risk.
Speeding: The court rejected the Defendant’s challenge to the radar evidence, noting that the issue of the radar’s reliability was not preserved for appeal as no objection was raised at trial. The officer’s testimony that the Defendant was driving 40 mph in a 30 mph zone was sufficient to support the conviction.