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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 32,707 4 DEANNA JOJOLA, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Samuel L. Winder, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 12 Santa Fe, NM 13 Vicki W. Zelle, Assistant Appellate Defender 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellant 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. 182 {1} Defendant appeals from the district c ourt’s judgment affirming her conviction 1 for driving while intoxicated (DWI), impaired to the slightest degree, in an on-record 2 appeal from metropolitan court. [DS 1; RP 111] In our notice of proposed summary 3 disposition, we proposed to affirm. Defe ndant has filed a memorandum in opposition, 4 which this Court has duly considered . We do not find Defendant’s arguments 5 persuasive, and therefore, we affirm. 6
{2} On appeal, Defendant contends that th ere was insufficient evidence to support 7 her DWI conviction. [DS 1] Defendant also argues that her convic tion violates federal 8 and state due process because the State failed to prove that she was guilty of DWI 9 beyond a reasonable doubt. [DS 6] We will address each issue in turn. 10 Sufficiency of Evidence 11
{3} We hold that there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s DWI 12 conviction. The State presented evidence that the officer observed Defendant traveling 13 ten miles below the speed limit on I-40, swer ving to the left and to the right, and 14 crossing the lane-line markers several tim es. [DS 3; RP 106] The officer followed 15 Defendant as she exited the interstate, he turned on his emergency equipment, and he 16 used his PA system to instruct Defendant to pull over to the right several times. [DS 17 3; RP 106] Defendant did not pull over immediately, and when she did, she pulled 18 over to the left side of the road. [MIO 8; DS 3; RP 106] The officer approached 193 Defendant and observed that she had bloodshot and watery eyes, a strong odor of 1 alcohol, and slurred speech. [DS 3; RP 106] The officer asked Defendant if she had 2 consumed any bevera ges that evening, and she did not respond. [DS 4; RP 107] 3 Defendant agreed to perform field sobr iety tests and demonstrated signs of 4 intoxication while exiting her vehicle and performing each test, including losing her 5 balance at times, putting her hand on the office r’s vehicle to maintain balance at other 6 times, swaying from side to side and back and forth, and walking backwards during 7 the one-leg stand. [DS 4-5; RP 107] 8
{4} This case is similar to State v. Neal , 2008-NMCA-008, ¶¶ 4, 29, 143 N.M. 341, 9 176 P.3d 330, wherein this Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the 10 defendant’s conviction for DWI where the officer observed the defendant traveling 11 five miles below the speed limit and cro ssing over the shoulder line three times; the 12 defendant smelled of alcohol and had bloodshot and watery eyes; the defendant 13 admitted drinking alcohol; and the defendant showed signs of intoxication during the 14 field sobriety tests, including lifting his ar ms, swaying, and not following the officer’s 15 instructions. 16
{5} Defendant’s memorandum in opposition briefly addresses Neal , but does not 17 distinguish it from this case. [MIO 7] Instead , Defendant distinguishes the facts in this 18 case from cases that are cited in Neal . [MIO 7-9] In doing so, Defendant parses the 194 evidence and challenges how the evidence wa s viewed and weighed by the jury. [MIO 1 7-10] We are not persuaded by Defendant’s arguments. 2
{6} As we stated in our notice, we view th e evidence in the light most favorable to 3 the verdict, indulge all reasonable inferences and resolve all conflicts in the evidence 4 in favor of that verdict, a nd do not reweigh the evidence. See State v. Cunningham , 5 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 26, 128 N.M. 711, 998 P.2d 176. It is “a n appellate court’s duty 6 on review of a criminal conviction to determine whether any rational jury could have 7 found each element of the crime to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.” State 8 v. Garcia , 1992-NMSC-048, ¶ 27, 114 N.M. 269, 837 P.2d 862. The application of 9 this standard “does not involve substituting the appellate court’s judgment for that of 10 the jury in deciding the reasonable-doubt question.” Id. Similarly, this standard does 11 not require that we consider the “merit of evidence that may have supported a verdict 12 to the contrary.” State v. Vigil , 1990-NMSC-066, ¶ 6, 110 N.M. 254, 794 P.2d 728. 13
{7} Under these standards, suffici ent evidence was presented to support the jury’s 14 verdict that Defendant was driving while intoxicated. See Neal , 2008-NMCA-008, ¶¶ 15 4, 29; see also State v. Anaya , 1982-NMSC-073, ¶ 4, 98 N.M. 211, 647 P.2d 413 16 (“[W]here a jury verdict in a criminal case is supported by subst antial evidence, the 17 verdict will not be disturbed on appeal.”). 18 Due Process 195 {8} In our calendar notice, we noted that De fendant did not make a federal or state 1 constitutional argument beyond her contention that there is insufficient evidence to 2 support her DWI contention, and Defendant did not indicate how she preserved this 3 issue below. [CN 6; DS 6; RP 108] 4
{9} In her memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to argue that the State 5 failed to meet its burden to prove that she was driving while intoxicated; therefore, her 6 conviction for DWI violates her due pro cess. [MIO 6, 10] Defendant’s memorandum 7 in opposition does not raise any new legal ar guments or show how she preserved any 8 due process arguments below. See Hennessy v. Duryea , 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 9 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar 10 cases, the burden is on the party opposing th e proposed disposition to clearly point out 11 errors in fact or law.”). 12
{10} Because we have already determined that the State presented sufficient 13 evidence to support Defendant’s conviction for DWI, we conclude that Defendant’s 14 due process rights were not violated. 15 Conclusion 16
{11} For the reasons stated in this Opinion and in our notice of proposed summary 17 disposition, we affirm. 18
{12} IT IS SO ORDERED. 196 1

_______________________________________ 2 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 3 WE CONCUR: 4

5 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge 6

7 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 8