April 15, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Felicia Martinez, No. A-1-CA-37622

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

—

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

2]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Court of Appeals of New Mexico

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Filed 4/15/2019 8:52 AM
MF
Plaintiff-Appellee, Mark Reynolds
V. No. A-1-CA-37622
FELICIA 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
Santa Fe, NM
Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Public Defender
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VANZI, Judge.
{1} Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction

of driving while intoxicated. [DS 9] For support, Defendant directs our attention to

her own testimony that “she was not driving, and only circumstantial evidence

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17
18

indicated otherwise.” [MIO 1] This Court proposed to affirm Defendant’s conviction,
since it is for the fact-finder to resolve conflicting testimony, and it is not the role of

a reviewing court to reweigh the evidence for purposes of making credibility

determinations. See State v. Salas, 1999-NMCA-099, § 13, 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d
482.
23 In her memorandum in opposition to that summary disposition, Defendant

continues to assert error in the trial court’s finding that her testimony was
implausible. [MIO 1] Having duly considered Defendant’s memorandum, we are
unpersuaded. See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, § 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759
P.2d 1003 (explaining that a party responding to a proposed disposition must
“specifically point out errors of law and fact[,]” and that the repetition of earlier
arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds
as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, 7 3, 297 P.3d 374.

33. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, as well as those stated in our notice of
proposed summary disposition, we affirm the judgment and sentence entered below.
4; ITISSO ORDERED.

CPrypeniange >

LINDA M. VANZI, Judge

WE CONCUR:
1 Jacqueline R. Medina 3 JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge
4 5
Briana Camera
BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Judge
3