State v. Morgan
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 34,187 5 ALEXANDER MORGAN, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Judith Nakamura, 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 Appellate Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellant 16 17 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} Defendant has appealed from a conviction for DWI. We previously issued a 2 notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to uphold the 3 conviction. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, 4 we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm. 5 {2} Defendant has challenged the denial of his motion to suppress. In the notice of 6 proposed summary disposition we opined that the traffic stop and ensuing 7 investigation were within the applicable constitutional parameters. See, e.g., State v. 8 Walters, 1997-NMCA-013, ¶¶ 5, 25-26, 123 N.M. 88, 149 P.3d 282 (arriving at the 9 same conclusion under analogous circumstances). 10 {3} In his memorandum in opposition Defendant continues to assert that the “mere 11 temporary blockage of traffic while his emergency flashers were operating did not 12 warrant the officer acting in a community caretaking role[,]” but implicitly 13 acknowledges that Walters provides otherwise. [MIO 1] We remain unpersuaded by 14 Defendant’s argument, and adhere to our initial assessment. To the extent Defendant 15 is impliedly asking us to reconsider Walters, we decline to do so. 16 {4} Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, as well as the reasons set forth in the 17 notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm. 18 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 2 1 2 _______________________________________ MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 3 WE CONCUR: 4 5 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 6 7 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.
