Opinion
No. 34,187
03-26-2015
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALEXANDER MORGAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM for Appellant
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Judith Nakamura, District Judge
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellee Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender
Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BUSTAMANTE, Judge. {1} Defendant has appealed from a conviction for DWI. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to uphold the conviction. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm. {2} Defendant has challenged the denial of his motion to suppress. In the notice of proposed summary disposition we opined that the traffic stop and ensuing investigation were within the applicable constitutional parameters. See, e.g., State v. Walters, 1997-NMCA-013, ¶¶ 5, 25-26, 123 N.M. 88, 149 P.3d 282 (arriving at the same conclusion under analogous circumstances). {3} In his memorandum in opposition Defendant continues to assert that the "mere temporary blockage of traffic while his emergency flashers were operating did not warrant the officer acting in a community caretaking role[,]" but implicitly acknowledges that Walters provides otherwise. [MIO 1] We remain unpersuaded by Defendant's argument, and adhere to our initial assessment. To the extent Defendant is impliedly asking us to reconsider Walters, we decline to do so. {4} Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, as well as the reasons set forth in the notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm. {5} IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ _________
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
WE CONCUR:
/s/ _________
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge
/s/ _________
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge