State v. Gonzales

 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. A-1-CA-36306 5 IRITA GONZALES, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Cristina T. Jaramillo, District Judge 9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Patrick J. Martinez 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 VANZI, Chief Judge. 17 {1} Defendant Irita Gonzales appeals from the district court’s on-record review and 18 affirmance of the metropolitan court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress 1 Officer Miller’s testimony and her conviction for driving while under the influence 2 of intoxicating liquor or drugs (DWI), following a bench trial in metropolitan court. 3 This Court issued a calendar notice proposing to adopt the district court’s 4 memorandum opinion with one point of clarification. Specifically, we noted that the 5 district court had relied on State v. Harper, 2011-NMSC-044, ¶ 15, 150 N.M. 745, 6 266 P.3d 25, in affirming the trial court’s decision, and that the New Mexico Supreme 7 Court had subsequently clarified Harper’s holding in State v. Le Mier, 2017-NMSC8 017, ¶¶ 15-22, 394 P.3d 959. We proposed, however, that since Le Mier still required 9 a consideration of the factors identified in Harper, affirmance was still proper. 10 {2} Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition to this Court’s notice of 11 proposed disposition. In her memorandum in opposition, Defendant argues that Le 12 Mier requires reversal of the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress, by 13 analogizing to factual similarities between her case and Le Mier. However, what 14 Defendant fails to recognize is one important distinction—specifically, that the trial 15 court in Le Mier granted the defendant’s request for sanctions, while the trial court in 16 this case has denied Defendant’s request. Thus, because Le Mier informs this Court 17 that, as an appellate court, we are to give deference to the discovery sanctions a trial 18 court imposes, and because Defendant has not demonstrated that the trial court abused 19 its discretion, summary affirmance of the trial court’s suppression ruling is proper. 2 1 {3} To the extent Defendant continues to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence 2 supporting her conviction for driving under the influence, we are equally unpersuaded. 3 Defendant contends that, “when only considering Officer Miller’s testimony of an 4 odor or alcohol, no admission of drinking, and her performance on [field sobriety tests 5 (FSTs)], there was no evidence of impaired driving presented by the State.” [MIO 9] 6 Defendant further argues that “[n]othing in Officer Miller’s testimony, nor the 7 tangible evidence presented at trial, demonstrates that Defendant . . . was less able to 8 operate a motor vehicle mentally, physically, or both. In the State’s most favorable 9 evidence, Defendant . . . approached a roadblock, was investigated for DWI, smelled 10 like alcohol, performed poorly on FSTs . . . , was compliant, and was placed under 11 arrest for . . . DWI.” [Id.] 12 {4} We note, however, that “[a]n officer does not have to observe a suspect actually 13 driving in an impaired manner if the officer, based upon all the facts and 14 circumstances has reasonable grounds to believe that [the d]efendant had been driving 15 while intoxicated.” State v. Sanchez, 2001-NMCA-109, ¶ 6, 131 N.M. 355, 36 P.3d 16 446 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, we have previously 17 held that “the smell of alcohol emanating from [the d]efendant, [the d]efendant’s lack 18 of balance at the vehicle, and the manner of [the d]efendant’s performance on the 19 FSTs constituted sufficient circumstances to give the officer the requisite objectively 20 reasonable belief that [the d]efendant had been driving while intoxicated.” State v. 3 1 Granillo-Macias, 2008-NMCA-021, ¶ 12, 143 N.M. 455, 176 P.3d 1187. Here, the 2 trial court found that Defendant “moved her head—contrary to instructions—during 3 the [horizontal gaze nystagmus], turned incorrectly on the walk-and-turn, put her foot 4 down during the one-leg-stand, and her performance on the countdown test was ‘really 5 bad.’ ” [RP 138] In addition, the trial court found that Defendant smelled of alcohol 6 and had been drinking, despite her denial, and the officer testified that Defendant’s 7 eyes were bloodshot and watery. [Id.] Thus, viewing this evidence in the light most 8 favorable to the trial court’s ruling, we conclude there was sufficient evidence to 9 support Defendant’s conviction. 10 {5} Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, in this Court’s notice of proposed 11 disposition, and in the district court’s memorandum opinion, we affirm. 12 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 __________________________________ LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 15 WE CONCUR: 16 _________________________________ 17 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 18 _________________________________ 19 EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge 4

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.