May 14, 2020- State of New Mexico v. Martin Martinez, No. A-1-CA-38190

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

19

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with
NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in
Odyssey.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 5/14/2020 9:13 AM

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, dh
Plaintiff-Appellee, we ;
Mark Reynolds
v. No. A-1-CA-38190

MARTIN MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Stan Whitaker, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
John Bennett, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VANZI, Judge.

a} Defendant appeals from a district court on-the-record judgment affirming his

convictions for aggravated DWI and multiple lesser-offenses, including open

2
1 container. We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant has responded
2 with a timely memorandum in opposition. We affirm.
3 {2} Defendant’s sole issue on appeal has been a challenge to the sufficiency of the
4 evidence to support his open container conviction. When assessing the sufficiency of
5 the evidence, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict,
6 indulging all reasonable inferences and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor
7 of the verdict.” State v. Samora, 2016-NMSC-031, ¶ 34, 387 P.3d 230 (internal
8 quotation marks and citation omitted). We disregard all evidence and inferences that
9 support a different result. State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438, 971
10 P.2d 829. “We then determine whether substantial evidence of either a direct or
11 circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
12 with respect to every element essential to a conviction.” State v. Garcia,
13 2016-NMSC-034, ¶ 15, 384 P.3d 1076 (internal quotation marks and citation
14 omitted). “Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might
15 accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” State v. Largo, 2012-NMSC-015, ¶ 30,
16 278 P.3d 532 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
17 {3} The jury was instructed, in pertinent part, that in order to convict Defendant,
18 they had to find that he drove a vehicle and was in “immediate possession” of an open

3
1 bottle containing alcohol. [RP 105] See State v. Smith, 1986-NMCA-089, ¶ 7, 104
2 N.M. 729, 726 P.2d 883 (“Jury instructions become the law of the case against which
3 the sufficiency of the evidence is to be measured.”).
4 {4} Defendant continues to argue that the evidence was insufficient to show that
5 the “immediate possession” element was satisfied during the time that Defendant was
6 driving the vehicle. We conclude that the district court, sitting in its appellate
7 capacity, correctly determined that there was sufficient evidence to support the
8 metropolitan court conviction. Specifically, the State presented the testimony of
9 Deputy Paul Jessen, who testified that he made a traffic stop of a vehicle driven by
10 Defendant, which resulted in Defendant’s arrest for DWI. [RP 206] Deputy Jessen
11 testified that he found an open bottle containing alcohol in the front passenger area;
12 there was some equivocation as to whether the bottle was on the passenger seat or on
13 the floorboard in front of it. [RP 206-07]
14 {5} Defendant continues to argue that this evidence does not establish that this was
15 in his actual physical possession, as required by State v. Nevarez, 2010-NMCA-049,
16 ¶¶ 19-20, 148 N.M. 820, 242 P.3d 387 (stating that NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-
17 138(B) (2013) does not permit constructive possession). However, the fact-finder
18 could reasonably infer that Defendant had the open bottle in his actual physical

4
1 possession while driving prior to being stopped by the deputy. Cf. State v. Mailman,
2 2010-NMSC-036, ¶¶ 2-4, 23-24, 148 N.M. 702, 242 P.3d 269 (stating that evidence
3 may permit a jury to reasonably infer past driving for purposes of supporting a DWI
4 conviction). Although Nevarez required the “immediate possession” under Section
5 66-8-138(B) to require actual possession, it clarified that this could be established by
6 circumstantial evidence. 2010-NMCA-049, ¶¶ 21-22. Here, Defendant was observed
7 driving the vehicle, he was the sole occupant of the vehicle, he smelled of alcohol,
8 and admitted to drinking. [RP 207] In contrast, there were three passengers in the
9 vehicle in Nevarez, all of whom were holding open beer cans. Id. ¶ 4. It would have
10 been speculative to infer in that case that the additional open containers in that
11 vehicle had been in the recent possession of the defendant, as opposed to his
12 passengers. Here, the above-noted facts indicate that it was reasonable to infer actual
13 possession at some point while Defendant was driving. As such, we conclude that the
14 evidence was sufficient in this case.
15 {6} Based on the foregoing, we affirm.
16 {7} IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge

WE CONCUR:

— m4 L. EE Judge
ACOUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge