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 dark-colored SUV parked erratically outside a closed library. The vehicle was running, and the Defendant exhibited signs of impairment, including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and an odor of alcohol. The Defendant admitted to consuming two beers and failed to perform field sobriety tests as instructed (paras 4-5).
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Court of Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted of aggravated driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to believe she was driving while impaired, citing her physical and medical conditions as factors affecting the reliability of sobriety tests. She also contended that the State failed to present sufficient evidence for her conviction (paras 2-3).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Was there probable cause for the Defendant's arrest for driving under the influence?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated driving under the influence?
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction (para 7).
Reasons
Per Duffy J. (Medina C.J. and Wray J. concurring):
The Court found that the arresting officer had probable cause to believe the Defendant was driving while impaired based on the totality of circumstances, including the erratic parking, the Defendant's physical signs of impairment, and her admission to drinking (paras 4-5). The Court also concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, as the evidence was viewed in the light most favorable to the State, and the Defendant's refusal to submit to chemical testing was noted (paras 5-6). The Defendant's arguments did not demonstrate any errors in the Court's proposed disposition, and the Court does not reweigh evidence on appeal (paras 3, 7).