July 6, 2020- State of New Mexico v. Garry O. Collins, No. A-1-CA-38471

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17

18

19

20

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 1s updated accordingly in
Odyssey.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Filed 7/6/2020 11:11 AM
Plaintiff-A ppellee, : Et
Mark. Reynak 6
Vv. No. A-1-CA-38471
GARY COLLINS, a/k/a GARRY

O. COLLINS
Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Cindy Leos, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
MJ Edge, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa, Fe NM
for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VARGAS, Judge.

3 Defendant appeals from the district court’s judgment and sentence, entered

pursuant to a jury verdict that found him guilty of aggravated fleeing from a law

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

enforcement officer. Unpersuaded by the docketing statement, we issued a notice of
proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm. Defendant has responded with
a memorandum in opposition to our notice. Unpersuaded, we affirm.

g; Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction
for aggravated fleeing from a law enforcement officer, contending the evidence was
insufficient to establish that any person was endangered by Defendant’s driving. [DS
4| Defendant also contends the district court erred by ruling that the defense opened
the door to the issue of impairment and by permitting the officer to testify to his
suspicion that Defendant was driving while impaired by alcohol. [DS 4]

3} | Defendant’s response to our notice contends that although the evidence shows
that a collision was only nearly averted, it does not show actual endangerment of
another person because Defendant was not driving very fast and the other vehicle was
stationary. [MIO 6-7] Our notice observed that Defendant had a passenger in his
vehicle when he pulled into a parking lot and accelerated suddenly, nearly hitting
another vehicle waiting in a McDonald’s drive-through line. [CN 3, 4; DS 2]
Defendant’s theory that his actions did not cause actual endangerment is a factual
matter for the jury to decide, not for this Court to consider on appeal. See State v.

Salas, 1999-NMCA-099, ¥ 13, 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 482 (recognizing that it is for

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

the fact-finder to resolve any conflict in the testimony of the witnesses and to
determine where the weight and credibility lie). As stated in our notice, when assessing
the sufficiency of the evidence, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to
the guilty verdict, indulging all reasonable inferences and resolving all conflicts in the
evidence in favor of the verdict.” State v. Samora, 2016-NMSC-031, § 34, 387 P.3d
230 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We disregard all evidence and
inferences that support a different result. State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, 4 19, 126
N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829. Viewing the evidence in this manner, we hold that the
evidence was sufficient to support the finding that Defendant’s actions endangered
another person and the jury could properly reject Defendant’s theory that his actions
did not cause actual endangerment. See id. (“Contrary evidence supporting acquittal
does not provide a basis for reversal because the jury 1s free to reject [the d]Jefendant’s
version of the facts.”’).

[R Also in response to our notice, Defendant maintains that the district court
abused its discretion by allowing the officer to testify about his observations of
Defendant’s impairment. [MIO 7-8] Neither Defendant’s docketing statement nor his
memorandum in opposition contain a description of the defense’s question or the

officer’s response, upon which Defendant’s issue is based. We are told the district

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

court ruled that defense counsel opened the door to the issue of impairment when
inquiring into the deputy’s standard operating procedures pertaining to whether and
when a chase would be initiated with a suspect who did not pull over when signaled
to do so. [DS 3-4] As indicated in our notice, we can imagine that the officer’s
response to the inquiry could include the reason why the officer tried to pull over
Defendant in the first instance, a consideration of whether a fleeing motorist was
impaired, and why the officer believed Defendant was fleeing. We further stated that
regardless of our ability to imagine a logical reason for the ruling, we are not required
to engage in speculation into the meaning or intent behind Defendant’s issue. See State
v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¥ 21, 278 P.3d 1031 (observing that appellate courts will
not review unclear or undeveloped arguments). Defendant’s memorandum in
opposition has not alleviated the need to engage in speculation, and we continue to see
logic behind the district court’s admission of the officer’s testimony. See Samora,
2016-NMSC-031, 937 (“Absent a clear abuse of discretion, we will not reverse a trial
judges decision to admit evidence. We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion
by its ruling unless we can characterize it as clearly untenable or not justified by
reason.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); State v. Aragon, 1999-

NMCA-060, § 10, 127 N.M. 393, 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that we presume correctness

—

2

3

4

in the trial court’s rulings and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate trial court
error). Thus, Defendant has not demonstrated error.

5} For the reasons stated in our notice and in this opinion, we affirm the district
court’s judgment and sentence.

i ITISSO ORDERED.

JUHIE J. VARGAS, Judge

WE CONCUR:

o Wyo

Jc MILES HANISEE, ChiefJudge

SENMIFER L. ATTREP, Judge