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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 34,517 4 KEVEN VALLE a/k/a 5 KEVIN VALLE, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Christina P. Argyers, District Judge 9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 Josephine H. Ford, Assist ant Appellate Defender 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellant 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 GARCIA, Judge. 192 {1} Defendant appeals from the district court’s memorandum opinion in an on1 record appeal of the metropolitan court proceedings, where Defendant was convicted 2 for aggravated DWI and a stop sign vi olation. Unpersuaded that Defendant 3 demonstrated error, we issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing 4 to affirm. Defendant has responded to our notice with a memorandum in opposition. 5 We have considered Defendant’s respons e and remain unpersuaded that Defendant 6 has established error. We, therefore, affirm. 7 {2} On appeal, Defendant pursues two issu es: (1) the metropolitan court abused its 8 discretion by denying Defendant a continuance, thereby excluding the defense witness 9 who did not appear for trial; [DS 22; MI O 4-7] and (2) insufficient evidence was 10 presented to support his conviction for aggravated DWI. [DS 23; MIO 7-8] Our notice 11 proposed to hold that the district court’s analysis was thorough and well-reasoned, and 12 we proposed to adopt it in its entirety. We informed Defendant that if he wishes to 13 pursue his appeal to achieve analternative resolution, thenhe must persuade us that 14 the district court’s analysis was incorrect. We address only those arguments Defendant 15 has pursued in response to our notice, and take this opportunity to express our 16 appreciation for the conciseness and responsiveness of his memorandum in 17 opposition. 18 Denial Of A Continuance 193 {3} Defendant contends that the district c ourt’s analysis is incorrect in three 1 respects: (1) Defendant had a legitimate motive for a continuance to secure the 2 missing witness; [MIO 4-5] (2) the witn ess would have corroborated the defense 3 theory that Defendant’s mistakes on the fiel d sobriety tests were not the result of his 4 impairment by alcohol; [MIO 5] and (3) the denial of a continuance to secure the 5 witness was an extreme sancti on that deprived Defendant of a defense. [MIO 5-7] We 6 are not persuaded that, on balance, the metropolitan court abused its discretion by 7 denying the third continuance. 8 {4} Although the objectives of securing the w itness for his interview and his trial 9 testimony may have been legitimate, the metropolitan court was not persuaded that the 10 defense had acted with diligence to achieve those objectives, having previously 11 granted extensions for sixty days to no avail; and the metropolitan court was not 12 persuaded Defendant demonstrated that he would accomplish those objectives with 13 another continuan ce. [RP 125, 131] See State v. Torres , 1999-NMSC-010, ¶ 10, 127 14 N.M. 20, 976 P.2d 20 (stating that“[t]here are a number of factors that trial courts 15 should consider in evaluating a motion for continuance, including the length of the 16 requested delay, the likelihood that a delay would accomplish the movant’s objectives, 17 the existence of previous continuan ces in the same matter, the degree of 18 inconvenience to the parties and the court, the legitimacy of the motives in requesting 194 the delay, the fault of the movant in causi ng a need for the delay, and the prejudice to 1 the movant in denying the motion”). Under the factual circumstances presented, we 2 see no error in these assessments. 3

{5} Furthermore, we are not persuaded thatDefendant made a showing that the 4 missing witness would have tes tified to such a crucial matter that his absence denied 5 Defendant a defense. It appears the mi ssing witness would have testified that 6 Defendant was not drinking in the four hours leading up to the traffic stop and that he 7 had consumed only two to three drinks four hours earlier. [RP 132; MIO 5] It appears, 8 however, that both Defendant and the officer testified that this was Defendant’s claim. 9 [RP 132] We are not persuaded that the witn ess was crucial to the defense theory that 10 the numerous indications that Defendant was driving under the unlawful influence of 11 alcohol were the result of confusion and nervousness. [RP 125-27; MIO 5] For these 12 reasons and those stated in the districtcourt’s memorandum opinion, [RP 129-33] we 13 hold that Defendant has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion in the denial of the 14 continuance. 15 Sufficiency Of The Evidence 16 {6} Defendant’s memorandum in opposition doe s not contend that the district 17 court’s memorandum opinion inaccurately recounted the evidence presented. 18 Defendant also does not present this Court any new legal argument indicating that the 195 evidence was insufficient. We continue to be persuaded that the district court’s 1 analysis of the evidence was correct and was sufficient to support a conviction. [RP 2 133-36] 3 {7} For the reasons stated in this opinion and in our notice, we affirm Defendant’s 4 metropolitan court conviction for aggrav ated DWI and a stop sign violation. 5 {8} IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

__________________ ______________ 7 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 8 WE CONCUR: 9

_______________________________ 10 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 11

_______________________________ 12 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 13