This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 file d 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. 31,860 4 EDDIE R. TRUJILLO, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY 7 Richard J. Brown, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Ernesto B. Martinez 12 Roswell, NM 13 for Appellant 14 MEMORANDUM OPINION 15 VIGIL, Judge. 16 Defendant-Appellant Eddie R. Trujillo (D efendant) appeals his conviction for 17 aggravated driving while intoxicated (D WI). We issued a notice of proposed 18 summary disposition, proposing to uphold th e conviction. Defendant has filed a 192 memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We 1 therefore affirm. 2 Defendant has raised a single issue, contending that the district court erred in 3 denying his motion to suppress and motion to dismiss. [DS 3] The motions are 4 premised on a claim that the underlying traffic stop was pretextual. [RP 64-66, 76-78, 5 84-86] We understand Defendant to rene w this claim in his memorandum in 6 opposition. [MIO 2] However, as we prev iously observed, the district court 7 specifically found that the stop was not pretex tual after considering the totality of the 8 circumstances surrounding the stop. [DS 3; RP 76-77, 84-85, 98] In light of the 9 standard of review, which requires this C ourt to view the evidence in the light most 10 favorable to the State, see State v. Gonzales , 2011-NMSC-012, ¶¶ 13, 16, 150 N.M. 11 74, 257 P.3d 894, Defendant’s c ontinuing assertions on appeal relative to the officer’s 12 subjective motive for the stop present no basis for relief. 13 Defendant also cites the case of State v. Ortiz , 2009-NMCA-092, 146 N.M. 14 873, 215 P.3d 811, in support of hi s position. [MIO 2] We find Ortizto be inapposite. 15 In Ortizthe defendant sought to prove that th e stop of his vehicle was pretextual. 16 2009-NMCA-092, ¶ 3. To that end he obtai ned discovery orders compelling the State 17 to produce the arresting officer’s cell phone records. Id. ¶¶ 12, 15. When the State 18 failed to comply, the defendant move d to suppress and/or dismiss. Id. ¶¶ 14, 16. The 193 district court specifically found that the State’s violation of the discovery orders was 1 in bad faith and that the defendant had been prejudiced , and it dismissed the case on 2 that basis. Id. ¶¶ 20-21. In light of the specific circumstances presented, this Court 3 affirmed the order of dismissal. Id. ¶ 39. 4 Ortizis similar to the present case insofar as it involves a claim of pretextual 5 stop and a request for discovery. However, the similarity ends there. Unlike Ortiz , 6 we find no indication that the district court ordered the State to provide additional 7 discovery to Defendant in re lation to his claim of pretex t. Nor does the State appear 8 to have violated any of the district court’ s orders. There is no finding that the State 9 acted in bad faith, and no determination th at Defendant was prejudiced in any way. 10 As a result, we perceive no basis, under Ortiz or otherwise, for the dismissal of the 11 charges against Defendant in this case. 12 Accordingly, for the reasons stated, we affirm. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14

_______________________________ 15 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 16 WE CONCUR: 17

_________________________________ 18 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 194 _________________________________ 1 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 2