State v. Holguin, A-1-CA-36384

Defendant Celina Holguin was convicted of aggravated DWI in metropolitan court; the district court affirmed on an on-record appeal and this Court reviews that affirmation.
Defendant argued the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop her and to expand the encounter into a DWI investigation; the Court proposed to affirm and gave notice of proposed summary disposition.
Defendant did not pursue the initial stop issue in response to the notice and thus abandoned that claim; she instead focused on challenging expansion of the stop into a DWI investigation.
The record did not include pretrial testimony Defendant relied on; the Court refused to consider matters not in the record.
The State introduced evidence (officer testimony and lapel video) that Officer Abeyta smelled alcohol, observed staggering, slurred speech, sobbing, and bloodshot, watery eyes; the officer also knew of prior reported behavior at an apartment building.
The Court deferred to the factfinder’s credibility determinations where supported by evidence and, on de novo review of reasonable suspicion, held the circumstances justified expanding the encounter into a DWI investigation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the initial stop supported by reasonable suspicion?	Officer had reasonable suspicion based on observed signs of intoxication and reported behavior.	Officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant.	Abandoned by Defendant on appeal; Court proposed to affirm on alternative grounds.
Could the officer expand the encounter into a DWI investigation?	Yes—odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, staggering, slurred speech, crying, and reported conduct justified investigation.	No—defendant disputes officer’s smell observation and highlights inconsistent testimony and lapel video.	Held: Expansion was justified; totality of circumstances gave reasonable suspicion.
May appellate court consider pretrial testimony not in the record?	N/A	Relied on pretrial testimony to challenge the stop and investigation.	No—matters not in the record are not considered on appeal.
Should appellate court reweigh conflicts in evidence (lapel video, officer wavering)?	Factfinder’s resolution supported by evidence; appellate review defers to those findings.	Challenges credibility and asks court to reweigh evidence.	No—appellate court will not reweigh or resolve credibility where substantial evidence supports findings.

State v. Salenas, 814 P.2d 136 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991) (failure to respond to proposed disposition constitutes abandonment of issue)
State v. Hunter, 33 P.3d 296 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001) (matters not of record present no issue for appellate review)
State v. Salas, 986 P.2d 482 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999) (credibility and weight of witness testimony are for the factfinder)
State v. Rowell, 188 P.3d 95 (N.M. 2008) (appellate courts defer to district court factual findings supported by substantial evidence)
State v. Leyva, 250 P.3d 861 (N.M. 2011) (reasonable-suspicion review is de novo based on totality of circumstances)
Schuster v. N.M. Dep’t of Taxation & Revenue, 283 P.3d 288 (N.M. 2012) (odor of alcohol combined with bloodshot, watery eyes supports reasonable suspicion to investigate DWI)