Opinion
NO. A-1-CA-37397
11-13-2018
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMANDA SOTELO, Defendant-Appellant.
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Gregory B. Dawkins, 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 CURRY COUNTY
Fred T. Van Soelen, District Judge Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Gregory B. Dawkins, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VANZI, Chief Judge. {1} Defendant appeals her convictions for aggravated battery, aggravated DWI, resisting, driving with a revoked license, open container, and concealing identity. We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant has responded with a memorandum in opposition. Not persuaded, we affirm. {2} Initially, we note that we have two separate records reflecting the fact that two criminal proceedings were consolidated for sentencing. We will refer to the records as CR-363 and CR-417. {3} Defendant continues to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support her convictions. [MIO 3] See generally State v. Armijo, 1997-NMCA-080, ¶ 16, 123 N.M. 690, 944 P.2d 919 ("A motion for a directed verdict challenges the sufficiency of the evidence[.]"). A sufficiency of the evidence review involves a two-step process. Initially, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Then the appellate court must make a legal determination of "whether the evidence viewed in this manner could justify a finding by any rational trier of fact that each element of the crime charged has been established beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Apodaca, 1994-NMSC-121, ¶ 6, 118 N.M. 762, 887 P.2d 756 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {4} The elements of the offenses were set out in the jury instructions. [RP CR-363 at 218; RP CR-417 at 168-73] In support of the aggravated battery charge, the State presented evidence that Defendant lured the victim to the front of the vehicle Defendant was driving, at which time Defendant "floored it." [MIO 2; DS 3] Victim jumped onto the hood of the car, and then was thrown onto the street, suffering injury. [MIO 2; DS 3-4] The State also presented testimony from an officer concerning physical evidence that corroborated Victim's story. [DS 4] {5} With respect to the charges in CR-417, the State presented evidence that Defendant refused to stop her vehicle when an officer located her and activated his lights. [DS 4] When she did stop, the officer noticed that Defendant smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech, and that there was an open container of alcohol in her vehicle. [DS 5] Defendant would not reveal her identity and refused to consent to testing after the officer attempted to read her the informed consent act. [DS 5] Our calendar notice proposed to hold that this evidence was sufficient to support the charges in CR-417. {6} In her memorandum in opposition, Defendant refers us to possible discrepancies in the evidence or alternative inferences that could be derived from the evidence. [MIO 2-5] However, as we noted above, on appeal we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. In addition, the jury was free to reject Defendant's testimony [MIO 3] that it was an accident. State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829. Finally, to the extent that Defendant is challenging the basis for the stop [MIO 5-6], Defendant did not raise this issue in her docketing statement [DS 8], and has not established that the issue was preserved or is otherwise viable. See Rule 12-208(F) NMRA. {7} For the reasons set forth above, we affirm.
{8} IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ _________
LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge
WE CONCUR:
/s/ _________
STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge /s/ _________
EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge