State v. Steward, 36,006

Defendant Joseph Steward was convicted in Curry County of DWI and assault after an incident involving his pickup truck and threats to neighbors.
Neighbor testified she saw Defendant rev the engine, drive over a log, hit and damage a fence, leave, then return; she also heard him threaten to shoot the family.
Patrol officer testified Defendant smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot/watery eyes, was loud and belligerent, and made a threatening statement about using a gun.
No field sobriety or blood-alcohol tests were conducted; officer did not observe the actual driving movement but relied on witness testimony and circumstantial evidence.
Defendant challenged sufficiency of evidence for both convictions and contested the State’s proof of prior convictions used to enhance the DWI sentence.
The Court of Appeals issued a calendar notice proposing summary affirmance; Defendant filed an opposition but failed to rebut the relied-upon evidence or show the prior-conviction challenge was viable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for DWI	Evidence (neighbor driving observation, officer observations of intoxication, threats) supports inference Defendant drove while intoxicated	No direct proof officer saw Defendant drive or drink; no sobriety/BAC tests performed	Affirmed — circumstantial and eyewitness evidence sufficient to infer DWI (actual physical control not required when other evidence shows driving)
Sufficiency of evidence for assault	Victim fear supported by Defendant’s threats and neighbor’s testimony she and family were concerned	Threat was an idle remark from ~50 yards away; insufficient to show reasonable fear of imminent battery	Affirmed — testimony that Defendant threatened to shoot and that family was concerned constitutes substantial evidence of assault
Validity of prior convictions for sentence enhancement	State offered file-stamped judgment and sentence documents to prove priors	Documents only show charges, not convictions; insufficiency argued	Denied — Defendant failed to preserve or support the issue; court deemed the challenge not a viable basis to amend docketing statement
Motion to amend docketing statement to raise priors issue	N/A (court applies standards for amendments)	Seeks leave to add prior-conviction challenge on appeal	Denied — Defendant did not satisfy preservation, timeliness, or show legal authority that the documents were insufficient; issue not viable

State v. Mailman, 242 P.3d 269 (N.M. 2010) (actual physical control is not required to prove DWI when circumstantial/witness evidence shows the accused drove)
State v. Mondragon, 759 P.2d 1003 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988) (respondent to summary calendar must specifically point out errors of law and fact)
State v. Salgado, 974 P.2d 661 (N.M. 1999) (definition of substantial evidence as relevant evidence a reasonable mind accepts as adequate)
State v. Rael, 668 P.2d 309 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983) (standards for amending docketing statements in summary-calendar cases)
State v. Moore, 782 P.2d 91 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989) (court may deny amendment raising nonviable issues even if alleging fundamental error)
In re Doe, 676 P.2d 1329 (N.M. 1984) (arguments unsupported by authority may be deemed to lack supporting law)