May 11, 2020- State of New Mexico v. Doren Ellsworth, No. A-1-CA-38254

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	1
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,	2
Plaintiff-Appellee,	3
v. 	No. A-1-CA-38254	4
DOREN ELLSWORTH,	5
Defendant-Appellant.	6
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY	7
Jacqueline D. Flores, District Judge	8
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General	9
Santa Fe, NM	10
for Appellee	11
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender	12
Gregory B. Dawkins, Assistant Appellate Defender	13
Santa Fe, NM	14
for Appellant	15
MEMORANDUM OPINION	16
VANZI, Judge.	17
{1} 	Defendant appeals his convictions for aggravated driving while intoxicated	18
(DWI) (refusal), reckless driving, and open container. We issued a calendar notice	19
proposing to affirm. Defendant has responded with a memorandum in opposition. We	20
affirm.	21
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 5/11/2020 9:36 AM

2
{2} 	Defendant continues to raise a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to	1
support his convictions. [MIO 8] A sufficiency of the evidence review involves a	2
two-step process. Initially, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the	3
verdict. Then the appellate court must make a legal determination of “whether the	4
evidence viewed in this manner could justify a finding by any rational trier of fact that	5
each element of the crime charged has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.”	6
State v. Apodaca, 1994-NMSC-121, ¶ 6, 118 N.M. 762, 887 P.2d 756 (internal	7
quotation marks and citations omitted).	8
{3} 	Our calendar notice proposed to hold that there was sufficient evidence to	9
support all three of Defendant’s convictions. Defendant’s memorandum in opposition	10
is limited to a challenge to the evidence to support his identity as the driver of the	11
vehicle in question. We therefore limit our analysis to the identification issue. See	12
State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056, ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 268, 814 P.2d 136 (stating that	13
where a party has not responded to this Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that	14
issue is deemed abandoned).	15
{4} 	Here, Defendant was one of three people in a blue sedan that was involved in	16
the underlying incident. [MIO 1-2] A witness in another vehicle identified Defendant	17
as the driver of the blue sedan. [MIO 2] When the blue sedan stopped in the mall	18
parking lot, this same witness described the two other individuals in the vehicle as	19

3
female. [MIO 3] To the extent that there was some conflicting evidence relating to the	1
physical description of the male driver, the jury could resolve this conflict and rely on	2
the testimony that the driver was male. See State v. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009,	3
¶ 26, 128 N.M. 711, 998 P.2d 176 (stating that the reviewing court “view[s] the	4
evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, indulging all reasonable	5
inferences and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict”); State	6
v. Sutphin, 1988-NMSC-031, ¶ 21, 107 N.M. 126, 753 P.2d 1314 (noting that the fact-	7
finder is free to reject a defendant’s version of events).	8
{5} 	For the reasons set forth above, we affirm.	9
{6} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.	10
11
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge	12
WE CONCUR:	13
______________________________	14
JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge	15
16
BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Judge	17