State v. Leyba
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 34,177 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 17 WECHSLER, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 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
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.
