State v. Leyba ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •      This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.
    Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum
    opinions.   Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain
    computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of
    Appeals and does not include the filing date.
    1        IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
    2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
    3          Plaintiff-Appellee,
    4 v.                                                                            No. 34,177
    5 JEANNINE LEYBA,
    6          Defendant-Appellant.
    7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
    8 Brett Loveless, District Judge
    9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
    10 Santa Fe, NM
    11 for Appellee
    12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender
    13 Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Public Defender
    14 Albuquerque, NM
    15 for Appellant
    16                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
    17 WECHSLER, Judge.
    1   {1}   Defendant appeals from the district court’s judgment affirming her DWI
    2 conviction following an on-record appeal from her metropolitan court conviction. [RP
    3 59, 69] Our notice proposed to affirm, and Defendant filed a memorandum in
    4 opposition (MIO). We remain unpersuaded by Defendant’s arguments and therefore
    5 affirm.
    6   {2}   Defendant continues to argue that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest her
    7 for DWI. [DS 10; MIO 1] See generally State v. Granillo-Macias, 
    2008-NMCA-021
    ,
    8 ¶¶ 7, 9, 
    143 N.M. 455
    , 
    176 P.3d 1187
     (setting forth our standard of review and
    9 providing that probable cause to arrest exists “when the facts and circumstances
    10 within the officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant the officer to believe that an
    11 offense has been or is being committed”). Defendant does not dispute the facts, but
    12 urges this Court to re-examine the legal conclusion reached by the metropolitan court.
    13 [MIO 1] For the reasons detailed in our notice, however, we agree with the
    14 metropolitan court’s ruling, and we therefore affirm.
    15   {3}   IT IS SO ORDERED.
    16                                                 ________________________________
    17                                                 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
    18 WE CONCUR:
    2
    1 ________________________________
    2 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
    3 ________________________________
    4 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 34,177

Filed Date: 4/8/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 5/15/2015