This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations fr om the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3 v. No. 33,862 4 SEBASTIAN DURAN, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Kenneth H. Martinez, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 12 Santa Fe, NM 13 Josephine H. Ford, Assist ant Appellate Defender 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 SUTIN, Judge. 182 {1} Defendant Sebastian Duran appeals hi s conviction for driving while under the 1 influence of an intoxicating liquor. We issued a notice of proposed summary 2 disposition proposing to affirm on September 9, 2014. Defendant filed a timely 3 memorandum in opposition, which we have dul y considered. We remain unpersuaded 4 that our initial proposed disposition was incorrect, and we therefore affirm. 5 DISCUSSION 6
{2} In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant concedes thatthe evidence was 7 sufficient to establish that th e crime occurred in the State of New Mexico and that the 8 crime occurred within the territorial jurisd iction of the district court. [MIO 16-17] 9 However, Defendant continue s to argue that there was insufficient evidence to show 10 that the crime occurred within the arre sting officer’s jurisdiction. [MIO 16] 11 Specifically, Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence that the crime 12 occurred in the municipality of Albuquerque, and the arresting officer therefore did 13 not have jurisdiction when she stoppe d and arrested him. [MIO 17] See NMSA 1978, 14 § 3-13-2(A)(4)(d) (1988) (stating that a police officer of a municipality shall 15 “apprehend any person in the act of violating the laws of the state or the ordinances 16 of the municipality and bring him before competent authority for examination and 17 trial”). 183 {3} The district court entered a memorandum opinion in Defendant’s on-record 1 appeal, addressing this issue, and we proposedto rely on its analysis in our notice of 2 proposed summary disposition. [RP 135-43] Specifically, the district court 3 determined that, even if this argument were preserved, there was sufficient evidence 4 that the crime occurred within the City of Albuquerque because the arresting officer 5 testified that she was within city limits when she stopped Defendant. [RP 142] She 6 also testified that she stopped Defendant at the intersection of Universe and Irving, 7 which is in the Ventana Ranch subdivisi on and that the Ventana Ranch subdivision 8 is within the City of Albuquerque. [R P 135-37, 142] Defendant argues in his 9 memorandum in opposition that the arresting o fficer did not testify verbatim that she 10 stopped Defendant “in the City of Albuquerque, County of Bernalillo, State of New 11 Mexico.” [MIO 18] However, we continue to agree with the district court’s analysis 12 that the officer’s testimony was sufficient to allow the trial court to infer that the stop 13 occurred within the city limits. We ther efore reject this assertion of error. 14
{4} Defendant also continues to argue thatpolice lacked probable cause to arrest 15 him because the arresting officer did not have a reasonable belief that he was driving 16 while impaired by alcohol. [MIO 20] De fendant raises this claim as a matter of 17 fundamental error because, as we pointed out in the notice of proposed summary 18 disposition, he did not raise th is issue below. [MIO 20] See In re Aaron L ., 194 2000-NMCA-024, ¶ 10, 128 N.M. 641, 996 P. 2d 431 (stating that on appeal the 1 reviewing court will not consider issues not raised in the trial court unless the issues 2 involve matters of fundamental error or f undamental rights of a party). Defendant is 3 necessarily arguing, therefore, that the district court should have suppressed the 4 evidence sua sponte. Accordi ng to our case law, such a cl aim implicates the doctrine 5 of plain error rather than fundamental error. See State v. Torres , 2005-NMCA-070, 6 ¶ 9, 137 N.M. 607, 113 P.3d 877. Although this doc trine is not as strict in application 7 as fundamental error, it is to be used sparingly. Id . The rule should be applied “only 8 if we have grave doubts about th e validity of the verdict, dueto an error that infects 9 the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceeding.” Id . (internal quotation marks and 10 citation omitted). 11
{5} Where, as here, the claim of plain erro r is based on the district court’s failure 12 to suppress evidence sua sponte, the doctrine will be applied only if suppression is the 13 only result rationally supported by undisputed facts in the record. Id . ¶¶ 11, 12. If the 14 claim depends on factual determinations th at the district court was never asked to 15 make, we will not apply the doctrine on appeal. See id . That is the situation here; 16 Defendant points to evidence that conflicts with the arresting officer’s testimony in 17 support of his arguments that probable causedid not exist to support his arrest for 18 driving while impaired. [MIO 20-21] However, the arresting officer testified that she 195 stopped Defendant because he drove through a stop sign without stopping and then 1 swerved into her lane, which provides reas onable suspicion for a traffic stop. [MIO 2 1-2] In addition, she testified that, af ter making the stop, sh e smelled alcohol in 3 Defendant’s vehicle and that Defendant performed unsatisfactorily on field sobriety 4 tests, which provided probable causefor the arrest. [MIO 3-4] See State v. Granillo5 Macias , 2008-NMCA-021, ¶ 12, 143 N.M. 455, 176 P.3d 1187 (holding that the odor 6 of alcohol, lack of balance at the vehicle, and failure to satisfactorily perform field 7 sobriety tests supported an objectively reas onable belief that the defendant had been 8 driving while intoxicated, and thus cons tituted probable cause to arrest). Although 9 Defendant points to his testim ony that he did not run a stop sign and did not turn into 10 the officer’s lane, Defendant did not ask the district court to resolve the conflicting 11 factual issues by moving to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to the stop and 12 arrest. [MIO 20-21] Accordingly, becau se there was conflicting evidence concerning 13 the legal issues and a finding of lack of probable cause is not the only one rationally 14 supported by the record, we hold there is no pl ain error in the district court’s failure 15 to sua sponte suppress the evidence in question. See Torres , 2005-NMCA-070, ¶¶ 9- 16 12. 17
{6} For these reasons, we affirm Defendant’s conviction. 18
{7} IT IS SO ORDERED. 196 __________________________________ 1 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 2

WE CONCUR: 3

___________________________________ 4 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge 5

___________________________________ 6 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 7