State v. Koreh
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 34,263 5 OZE KOREH, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Christina P. Argyres, 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 1 WECHSLER, Judge. 2 {1} Defendant has appealed from a conviction for DWI. We previously issued a 3 notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to uphold the 4 conviction. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, 5 we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm. 6 {2} Defendant has challenged the denial of his motion to suppress based upon the 7 loss of two video recordings. In the notice of proposed summary disposition we 8 opined that the court duly considered the relevant factors, see generally State v. 9 Chouinard, 1981-NMSC-096, ¶¶ 23-24, 96 N.M. 658, 634 P.2d 680, and 10 appropriately concluded that weightier sanctions were not warranted. See, e.g., State 11 v. Duarte, 2007-NMCA-012, ¶¶ 11-12, 140 N.M. 930, 149 P.3d 1027 (arriving at the 12 same conclusion under analogous circumstances). 13 {3} Defendant does not take issue with our analysis. Instead, he invites the Court 14 to re-examine Chouinard. [MIO 1] We must decline the invitation. See generally 15 Alexander v. Delgado, 1973-NMSC-030, ¶ 9, 84 N.M. 717, 507 P.2d 778 (“[T]he 16 Court of Appeals is to be governed by the precedents of this [C]ourt.). 17 {4} Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, as well as the reasons set forth in the 18 notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm. 19 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 1 2 ________________________________ JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 3 WE CONCUR: 4 ________________________________ 5 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 6 ________________________________ 7 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.
