State v. Pacheco
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 34,089 5 JUSTIN PACHECO, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Brett R. Loveless, District Judge 9 Gary K. King, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 13 14 15 16 Law Offices of the Public Defender Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender Santa Fe, NM Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender Albuquerque, NM 17 for Appellant 18 19 VANZI, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} Defendant Justin Pacheco appeals from his conviction for driving while under 2 the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (DWI) entered by the metropolitan court 3 and subsequently affirmed by the district court following an on-record review. [DS 4 2; RP 55, 61, 62] In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to 5 affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. 6 We remain unpersuaded by Defendant’s arguments and therefore affirm. 7 {2} We proposed to hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing 8 the State to recall Officer Alvidrez before the State had rested its case-in-chief. [CN 9 2] See State v. McAdams, 1972-NMCA-029, ¶ 13, 83 N.M. 544, 494 P.2d 622 10 (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the State to 11 recall an officer to the witness stand during its case-in-chief, despite the fact that the 12 officer had already been excused from the witness stand). We instructed Defendant 13 that if he wished this Court to reach a different conclusion, he should demonstrate why 14 this Court’s reliance on McAdams is incorrect. [CN 2-3] 15 {3} Defendant’s memorandum in opposition does not address McAdams. Instead, 16 Defendant asks this Court to adopt a standard from Illinois. [MIO 1-2] We decline this 17 invitation. 18 {4} For the reasons discussed in this Opinion and in our notice of proposed 19 summary disposition, we affirm. 2 1 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 __________________________________ LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 4 WE CONCUR: 5 _________________________________ 6 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge 7 _________________________________ 8 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
