A-1-CA-37620 | Omnilex

Gesamter Gesetzestext

1 	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
3 	Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 v. 	No. A-1-CA-37620
5 ASHLEY OTERO,
6 	Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
8 Briana H. Zamora, District Judge
9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
10 	Santa Fe, NM 	·
11 	for Appellee
12 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
13 	Santa Fe, NM
14 	Steven James Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender
15 	Albuquerque, NM
16 for Appellant
17 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
18 VANZI, Judge.
19 {I} 	Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction
20 	of driving while intoxicated. [DS 9] For support, Defendant directs our attention to
21 	testimony that she had not been drinking on the night of her arrest. [DS 6, 7, 8] This
22 Court proposed to affirm Defendant's conviction, since it is for the fact-finder to
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 4/25/2019 1:04 PM
Mark Reynolds

1 resolve conflicting testimony and it is not the role of a reviewing court to reweigh the
2 evidence for purposes of making credibility determinations. State v. Salas, 1999-
3 NMCA-099, 1 13, 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 482.
4 	{2} 	In her memorandum in opposition to that summary disposition, Defendant
5 continues to assert that witnesses at trial "testified that she was not intoxicated on the
6 night in question." [MIO 1] Having duly considered Defendant's memorandum, we
7 are unpersuaded. See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, 110, 107 N.M. 421,
8 759 P.2d 1003 (explaining that a party responding to a proposed disposition must
9 "specifically point out errors of law and fact[,]" and that the repetition of earlier
10 arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds
11 	as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, 13,297 P.3d 374.
12 	{3} 	Thus, for the foregoing reasons, as well as those stated in our notice of
13 	proposed summary disposition, we affirm the judgment and sentence entered below.
14 {4}
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
~-	LIA.VZI,Judge
2

1 WECONCUR:
2~~~	3 JUE1. vAGAi,J ge
Ol
3

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22

7

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
STATE OF NEW MEXICO Filed 4/25/2019 1:04 PM
9 |
at MF
Plaintiff-Appellee, Mark Reynokis |
V. No. A-1-CA-37620
ASHLEY OTERO,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Briana H. Zamora, District Judge
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM ,
for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender

Santa Fe, NM
Steven James Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VANZI, Judge.
{1}. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction
of driving while intoxicated. [DS 9] For support, Defendant directs our attention to

testimony that she had not been drinking on the night of her arrest. [DS 6, 7, 8] This

Court proposed to affirm Defendant’s conviction, since it is for the fact-finder to

1 resolve conflicting testimony and it is not the role of a reviewing court to reweigh the
2 evidence for purposes of making credibility determinations. State v. Salas, 1999-
3 NMCA-099, 1 13, 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 482.
4 	{2} 	In her memorandum in opposition to that summary disposition, Defendant
5 continues to assert that witnesses at trial "testified that she was not intoxicated on the
6 night in question." [MIO 1] Having duly considered Defendant's memorandum, we
7 are unpersuaded. See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, 110, 107 N.M. 421,
8 759 P.2d 1003 (explaining that a party responding to a proposed disposition must
9 "specifically point out errors of law and fact[,]" and that the repetition of earlier
10 arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds
11 	as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, 13,297 P.3d 374.
12 	{3} 	Thus, for the foregoing reasons, as well as those stated in our notice of
13 	proposed summary disposition, we affirm the judgment and sentence entered below.
14 {4}
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
~-	LIA.VZI,Judge
2

1
WE CONCUR:
2
Twice 4. Vargas
3
JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge
4
Jacqueline R. Medina
5 JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge
3

April 25, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Ashley Otero, No. A-1-CA-37620

Gesamter Gesetzestext

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort