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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 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. 32,039 4 MELVIN GARNENEZ, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY 7 Thomas J. Hynes, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Jacqueline L. Cooper, Chief Public Defender 12 Will O’Connell, Assistan t Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 VIGIL, Judge. 17 Defendant appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI) based on 18 a conditional plea that reserved the right to challenge the denial of his motion to 192 suppress. We issued a calendar notice pr oposing to affirm. De fendant has responded 1 with a memorandum in opposition. We affirm. 2 Defendant continues to challenge the district court’s denial of his motion to 3 suppress, in which he had ar gued that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to make 4 the initial stop. “Appellate re view of a district court’s decision regarding a motion to 5 suppress evidence involves mixed que stions of fact and law.” State v. Urioste , 2002- 6 NMSC-023, ¶ 6, 132 N.M. 592, 52 P.3d 964. “As a reviewing court we do not sit as 7 a trier of fact; the district c ourt is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and 8 to evaluate the credibility of witnesses.” Id. “We view the facts in the manner most 9 favorable to the prevailing party and defer to the district court’s findings of fact if 10 substantial evidence exists to support those findings.” Id. Determining the 11 reasonableness of a search is a matter of law, which we review de novo. In re Josue 12 T. , 1999-NMCA-115, ¶ 14, 128 N.M. 56, 989 P.2d 431. 13 Here, the officer ran the vehicle’s li cense plate through MVD’s records and 14 determined that the registeredowner’s driver’s license was suspended. [MIO 2] The 15 officer also testified that Defendant, the driv er, appeared to be th e age of the registered 16 owner. Defendant argues that this amountedto an insufficient basis to initiate the 17 stop. Our calendar notice proposed to hold that Defendant’s argument is directly 18 refuted by State v. Candelaria , 2011-NMCA-001, ¶¶ 11-15, 149 N.M. 125, 245 P.3d 193 69, cert. denied , 2010-NMCERT-011, 150 N.M. 490, 262 P.3d 1143, which sided 1 with the majority of states that have recognized that a vehicle stop may be initiated if 2 a check indicates that the registered owner’s license is suspe nded or revoked and the 3 evidence does not otherwise indicate th at the driver is not the owner. 4 In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant argues that Candelaria also 5 involved suspicious circumstances, which is lacking here. [MIO 8-9] However, the 6 test set forth in Candelaria specifically rejected any additional need for particularized, 7 individual suspicion. Id . ¶ 16. We also reject the claim that a difference in height 8 necessarily constituted evidence that Defendant was not the owner. [MIO 2, fn.1; 9- 9 10] In this case, the officer testified th at the driver matched the owner’s gender and 10 general age. [DS 2] Weconclude that the stop was constitutionally reasonable 11 pursuant to the analysis in Candelaria

. 12 For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the district court. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14

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

_________________________________ 18 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 194 _________________________________ 1 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 2