This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from 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. 33,168 4 FRANK MONTOYA, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Judith K. Nakamura, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Corinna Laszlo-Henry, Assistant Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 13 Vicki W. Zelle, Assistant Appellate Defender 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellant 16
MEMORANDUM OPINION 172 KENNEDY, Chief Judge. 1 {1} Frank Montoya (Defendant) appeals the di strict court’s on-record affirmance 2 of his metropolitan court convictions for driving while intoxicated and careless 3 driving. In our notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to affirm. 4 Defendant has filed a memorandum in oppositi on, which we have duly considered. As 5 we do not find Defendant’s argumentsto be persuasive, we affirm. 6 Denial of Montoya’s Motion to Suppress 7 {2} In this Court’s notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to hold 8 that the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress because, 9 viewing the facts in the light most favorableto the district court’s ruling, the officer 10 had probable cause to believe that Defendant had been driving while intoxicated. In 11 Defendant’s memorandum in opposition, he provides no new facts or authority that 12 would persuade this Court that its propos ed disposition of the issue should not be 13 made. [MIO 20-27] Instead, he divides up the facts known to the officer and argues 14 that each is not sufficient to establish probable cause. [MIO 20-27] However, a 15 probable cause determination looks at all the circumstances known to the officer as 16 a totality. See State v. Nyce, 2006-NMSC-026, ¶ 10, 139 N.M. 647, 137 P.3d 587 17 (“When ruling on probable cause, we deal only in the realm of reasonable 18 probabilities, and look to the totality of the circumstances to determine if probable 19 cause is present.”), overruled on other grounds by State v. Williamson , 2009-NMSC- 203 039, 146 N.M. 488, 212 P.3d 376; see also State v. Neal , 2007-NMSC-043, ¶ 28, 142 1 N.M. 176, 164 P.3d 57 (rejecting a “divide-and-conquer analysis in which we view 2 each individual factor or circumstance in a vacuum” when assessing reasonable 3 suspicion (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Accordingly, for the 4 reasons stated in our notice, we find no error in the district court’s ruling on the 5 motion to suppress. 6 Sufficiency of the Evidence 7 {3} In our notice of proposed summary di sposition, we proposed to hold that, 8 viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the district court’s decision, there was 9 sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction for careless driving. In 10 Defendant’s memorandum in opposition, he c ontinues to argue th at the evidence was 11 not sufficient. [MIO 27-32] As he provides no new fact s or authority that would 12 persuade this Court that its proposed dispos ition of this issue wa s in error, we hold 13 that the evidence was sufficient for the reasons given in our notice. 14 {4} Therefore, for the reasons stated hereand in our notice of proposed summary 15 disposition, we affirm. 16 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 17

______________ ______________________ 18 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge 194 WE CONCUR: 1

________________________ 2 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 3

________________________ 4 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 5