March 26, 2020- State of New Mexico v. Felisha Carol Sainz, No. A-1-CA-38151

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court’s discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with
NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in
Odyssey.
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-38151
5 FELISHA CAROL SAINZ,
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 J. Forsberg, Assistant Public Defender
15 Albuquerque, NM
16 for Appellant
17 MEMORANDUM OPINION
18 VANZI, Judge.
19 {1} Defendant has appealed her convictions for DWI and an open container
20 violation. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 3/26/2020 12:10 PM

2
1 we proposed to uphold the convictions. Defendant has filed a memorandum in
2 opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.
3 {2} Because the pertinent background information and applicable principles have
4 previously been set forth, we will avoid unnecessary repetition here, and instead focus
5 on the content of the memorandum in opposition.
6 {3} Defendant continues to challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support
7 her convictions. [MIO 1-2] However, as the district court observed, [RP 82-88] the
8 convictions are amply supported. Although Defendant contends that a variety of
9 circumstances distinguish this case and should be said to diminish the probative value
10 of the evidence that was presented, [MIO 1-2] we remain unpersuaded. “[A]s a
11 reviewing court, we do not reweigh the evidence or attempt to draw alternative
12 inferences from the evidence.” State v. Estrada, 2001-NMCA-034, ¶ 41, 130 N.M.
13 358, 24 P.3d 793; see also State v. Montoya, 2005-NMCA-078, ¶ 3, 137 N.M. 713,
14 114 P.3d 393 (“[T]he evidence is not to be reviewed with a divide-and-conquer
15 mentality, . . . [ and w]e do not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for
16 that of the jury” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
17 {4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary
18 disposition and above, we affirm.

3
1 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
3 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
4 WE CONCUR:
5
6 J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge
7
8 MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge