State v. Navarette, 123015 NMCA, 34, 687

Docket Nº:34, 687
Opinion Judge:J. MILES HANISEE, JUDGE
Party Name:STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PHILLIP NAVARETTE, Defendant-Appellant
Attorney:Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender Santa Fe, NM Sergio J. Viscoli, Assistant Appellate Defender Albuquerque, NM for Appellant
Judge Panel:WE CONCUR: JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
Case Date:December 30, 2015
Court:Court of Appeals of New Mexico
 
FREE EXCERPT

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

PHILLIP NAVARETTE, Defendant-Appellant

No. 34, 687

Court of Appeals of New Mexico

December 30, 2015

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY Steven L. Bell, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee

Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender Santa Fe, NM Sergio J. Viscoli, Assistant Appellate Defender Albuquerque, NM for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

J. MILES HANISEE, JUDGE

{1} Defendant appeals his conviction for aggravated DWI (refusal). We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant has responded with a timely memorandum in opposition. We affirm.

Sufficiency

{2} Defendant continues to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for aggravated DWI (refusal), contrary to NMSA 1978, § 66-8-102(D)(3) (2010). [MIO 2] A sufficiency of the evidence review involves a two-step process. Initially, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Then the appellate court must make a legal determination of "whether the evidence viewed in this manner could justify a finding by any rational trier of fact that each element of the crime charged has been established beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Apodaca, 1994-NMSC-121, ¶ 6, 118 N.M. 762, 887 P.2d 756 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

{3} In order to convict Defendant, the evidence had to show that he operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to the slightest degree, and that he refused to submit to chemical testing. [RP 192] Here, an officer testified that he observed a vehicle being driven erratically, including striking and jumping a curb. [MIO 1] After stopping the vehicle, he identified Defendant as the driver. [MIO 1] Defendant had bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, and had trouble maintaining his balance. [MIO 1] Defendant admitted to drinking alcohol and refused to submit to chemical testing, providing evidence of consciousness of guilt. [MIO 2] Notwithstanding Defendant's claim that there should have been additional evidence [MIO 3], we conclude that this is sufficient to support his conviction. See State v. Neal, 2008-NMCA-008, ¶¶ 4-5, 29, 143 N.M....

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP