State v. Montoya
36,217
| N.M. Ct. App. | Aug 17, 2017Background
- Defendant Amy Montoya entered a conditional guilty plea to aggravated DWI after challenging the constitutionality of her vehicle stop.
- In metro court, Montoya moved to suppress evidence, arguing the stop violated the Betancourt standards governing crime‑scene perimeters and roadblocks.
- The State argued the perimeter was justified by exigent circumstances and not governed by Betancourt; the metro court denied suppression.
- On remand the metro court again found no constitutional violation. Montoya appealed the denial, arguing the court should have assessed the reasonableness of the entire crime‑scene perimeter under Betancourt, not just the specific roadblock where she was stopped.
- This Court issued a proposed disposition to affirm; Montoya filed a memorandum in opposition but conceded one cited out‑of‑jurisdiction case conflicted with her position and did not identify legal error warranting reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop of Montoya’s vehicle was unconstitutional because the metro court evaluated only the specific roadblock rather than the entire crime‑scene perimeter under Betancourt | State: The roadblock/perimeter was reasonable and justified by exigent circumstances; Betancourt requirements did not invalidate the perimeter | Montoya: The metro court should have assessed the reasonableness of the entire perimeter under Betancourt rather than only the particular roadblock | Court: Affirmed; Montoya failed to carry her burden to demonstrate error and did not adequately develop or support the contention that the entire perimeter review was required |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Las Cruces v. Betancourt, 105 N.M. 655, 735 P.2d 1161 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987) (standards for evaluating constitutionality of crime‑scene perimeters/roadblocks)
- State v. Aragon, 127 N.M. 393, 981 P.2d 1211 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999) (presumption of correctness for trial court rulings; appellant bears burden to show error)
- Hennessy v. Duryea, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (in summary calendar appeals, the party opposing proposed disposition must clearly point out errors of fact or law)