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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HANISEE, Judge.

{1} Defendant appeals his conviction for aggravated DWI (refusal). We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant has responded with a timely memorandum in opposition. We affirm.

Sufficiency

{2} Defendant continues to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for aggravated DWI (refusal), contrary to NMSA 1978, § 66-8-102(D)(3) (2010). [MIO 2] 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 citations omitted).

{3} In order to convict Defendant, the evidence had to show that he operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to the slightest degree, and that he refused to submit to chemical testing. [RP 192] Here, an officer testified that he observed a vehicle being driven erratically, including striking and jumping a curb. [MIO 1] After stopping the vehicle, he identified Defendant as the driver. [MIO 1] Defendant had bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, and had trouble maintaining his balance. [MIO 1] Defendant admitted to drinking alcohol and refused to submit to chemical testing, providing evidence of consciousness of guilt. [MIO 2] Notwithstanding Defendant's claim that there should have been additional evidence [MIO 3], we conclude that this is sufficient to support his conviction. See State v. Neal, 2008-NMCA-008, ¶¶ 4-5, 29, 143 N.M. 341, 176 P.3d 330 (holding that there was sufficient evidence to support a DWI conviction where the defendant smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot and watery eyes, admitted to drinking earlier, committed a traffic violation, showed signs of intoxication during the field sobriety tests, and refused to take a breath alcohol test, from which the district court could properly infer a consciousness of guilt).

Prior Convictions

{4} Defendant challenges the admission of three prior DWI convictions on the basis that they constituted hearsay and should not be considered self-authenticated because the municipal court records are not kept for an indeterminable amount of time. [DS 3-5] The convictions are public records as defined by Rule 11-803(8)(a)(I) NMRA. As such, we do not deem it necessary to consider Defendant's claim that they did not satisfy an alternative definition of "public record" under that Rule. [MIO 3-4] In addition, the records were certified by a custodian of those records in the municipal court. [DS 3-5] As such, we believe that they were properly admitted as self-authenticated documents pursuant to Rule 11-902(4)(a) NMRA.

{5} For the reasons discussed above, we affirm.

{6} IT IS SO ORDERED.

JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge and M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, concurs.