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 stopped by an officer at 1:30 a.m. for making an illegal U-turn. The officer observed signs of intoxication, including a strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The Defendant admitted to consuming two beers shortly before being stopped. He failed three field sobriety tests, which he attributed to physical limitations from back surgery. A breath alcohol test (BAT) conducted 39 minutes after the stop showed a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .10%. The Defendant refused to take a second BAT and claimed he requested a blood test, which the officer denied.
Procedural History
- Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court: The Defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) following a bench trial.
- District Court: After a de novo bench trial, the Defendant was again found guilty of DWI.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred by failing to consider whether his BAC was .10% at the time of driving, that the evidence was insufficient to prove his BAC at the time of driving, and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the Defendant waived certain arguments by refusing a second BAT and stipulating to the calibration log without requiring further evidence.
Legal Issues
- Did the trial court err in failing to consider whether the Defendant’s BAC was .10% at the time of driving?
- Was the evidence sufficient to prove that the Defendant’s BAC was .10% at the time of driving?
- Was the Defendant denied effective assistance of counsel?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s conviction for DWI.
Reasons
Per Chavez J. (Apodaca and Black JJ. concurring):
- The Court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction under subsection A of the DWI statute, which requires proof that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol to the slightest degree while in control of the vehicle. Evidence included the officer’s observations, the Defendant’s failed sobriety tests, and the BAT result of .10%.
- The Court held that the Defendant waived his argument under subsection C of the statute by refusing to take a second BAT, which could have provided evidence of a rising or falling BAC. The Defendant also stipulated to the calibration log and did not object to the BAT’s admission, further undermining his argument.
- On the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the Court determined that the record did not establish that counsel’s performance fell below a reasonable standard or that the Defendant suffered prejudice. The Defendant’s argument regarding the impact of smoking on the BAT was unsupported by evidence in the record.
- The Court rejected the Defendant’s argument that the trial court’s oral comments indicated a conviction under subsection C, noting that the trial court’s written order did not specify a subsection and that oral comments cannot form the basis for reversal.