State v. Baca
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 34,406 5 MIGUEL BACA, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Stanley J. Whitaker, District Judge 9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 13 14 15 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender Santa Fe, NM Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellant 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 GARCIA, Judge. 19 {1} Defendant appeals his conviction for DWI (refusal, first offense), pursuant to 1 a conditional guilty plea [RP 34, 35, 60], entered by the metropolitan court [RP 36] 2 and subsequently affirmed by the district court following an on-record review. Our 3 notice proposed to affirm, and Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition which 4 we accept as timely filed. [MIO 1] We remain unpersuaded by Defendant’s arguments 5 and thus affirm. 6 {2} Defendant continues to argue that the district court erred in denying his motion 7 to suppress Officer Miller’s testimony on the basis that the State lost the lapel video 8 from the traffic stop. [DS 2; MIO 1] See State v. Duarte, 2007-NMCA-012, ¶ 3, 140 9 N.M. 930, 149 P.3d 1027 (providing that we review a district court’s denial of a 10 motion to suppress or dismiss the charges for lost evidence under an abuse of 11 discretion standard). For reasons detailed in our notice, and in applying the standard 12 for lost evidence established in State v. Chouinard, 1981-NMSC-096, ¶ 16, 96 N.M. 13 658, 634 P.2d 680, we conclude that there is no basis for reversal. In doing so, we 14 decline Defendant’s invitation to re-examine the Chouinard holding. [MIO 1] See 15 State v. Wilson, 1994-NMSC-009, ¶ 6, 116 N.M. 793, 867 P.2d 1175 (“The Court of 16 Appeals . . . remains bound by Supreme Court precedent [.]”). 17 {3} For the reasons above and detailed in our notice, we affirm. 18 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 1 2 ________________________________ TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 3 WE CONCUR: 4 _______________________________ 5 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 6 _______________________________ 7 J. MILES HANISEE, 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.
