STATE v. ISLAS, 35 (2017)
Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Number: innmco20170315451
Filed: Feb. 13, 2017
Latest Update: Feb. 13, 2017
Summary: 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 VANZI , Chief Judge . {1} Defendant-Appellant Iann Islas (Defendant)
Summary: 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 VANZI , Chief Judge . {1} Defendant-Appellant Iann Islas (Defendant) ..
More
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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
VANZI, Chief Judge.
{1} Defendant-Appellant Iann Islas (Defendant) has sought to appeal his conviction of driving while intoxicated (DWI). We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded.
{2} In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant presents no new arguments but reiterates his position that the DWI roadblock pursuant to which he was seized was unconstitutional and that the results of his breath alcohol test were admitted in error. [MIO 2-5] We remain unpersuaded by Defendant's arguments. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm.
{3} IT IS SO ORDERED.
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge and M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, concurs.
Source: Leagle
