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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 33,748 4 CARLA CHACON, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Jacqueline D. Flores, 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 Josephine H. Ford, Assist ant Appellate Defender 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 FRY, Judge. 18
{1} Defendant appeals from the district court’s judgment in an on-record appeal, 19 affirming the metropolitan court’s sentencing order that convicted Defendant for DWI, 202 improper left turn, and failure to maintain traffic lane. Unpersuaded by Defendant’s 1 docketing statement, we entered a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing 2 to affirm. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition to our notice. We remain 3 unpersuaded and affirm. 4
{2} On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her 5 conviction for DWI, under the “impaired to the slightest degree” standard. [DS 10; 6 MIO 8-11] Specifically, Defendant argues that her driving did not indicate 7 impairment, nor did her conduct throughout the stop, and nor did her performance on 8 the field sobriety tests (FSTs). [DS 8-9; MIO 7-8] Also, Defendant points out that her 9 BAC was .06/.05. [DS 8; MIO 7] 10
{3} Our notice stated our view that the district court entered a thorough and 11 accurate memorandum opinion, addressing all the same matters raised in the current 12 appeal. Because Defendant did not seem to dispute the distri ct court’s recitation of the 13 operative facts, our notice pr oposed to adopt that secti on of the district court’s 14 opinion. [RP 95-97] In response to our noti ce, Defendant provides us with another 15 detailed recitation of the facts, [MIO 1-8] identical to the facts in the docketing 16 statement, [DS 1-9] and again does not indi cate whether she disputes any facts as set 17 forth by the district court. Wecontinue to see no material distinction between the facts 183 as set forth in the district court’s opinion [RP 95-97] and those set forth in 1 Defendant’s response. [MIO 1-8] 2
{4} Our notice also stated our view that the district court accurately set forth the 3 State’s burden of proof, the standard of review, and guiding principles regarding our 4 deference to the fact-finder’s role in we ighing the evidence and resolving matters of 5 credibility. [RP 97-99] Our notice added only our proposed reliance on two cases to 6 further demonstrate why we believed the evidence agains t Defendant was sufficient. 7 We explained to Defendant that if she wanted this Court to arrive at a different 8 conclusion, in any response she may have wi shed to file, she needed to persuade us 9 that the district court’s analys is of the facts was incorrect. 10
{5} Defendant’s memorandum in opposition to our notice acknowledges that New 11 Mexico case law does not support her position, but she continues to challenge the 12 sufficiency of the evidence. [MIO 9] Defendant’s res ponse focuses on our reliance on 13 Defendant’s performance on the field sobriety tests (FSTs) in our analysis of whether 14 sufficient evidence supports her DWI convic tion. [MIO 9-11] Defendant argues that 15 FST results do not accurately or reliabl y measure impairment by alcohol. [Id.] 16
{6} We note that the district court’s opinion also addressed this concern, and did so 17 appropriately. [RP 98-99] Evidence of Defe ndant’s unsatisfactory performance on the 18 FSTs was presented to illustrate her diffi culty following directions, maintaining 194 balance, and perform other simple tasks. [RP 96, 98] Our case law considers an 1 officer’s observations of such manifest ations as commonly understood features of 2 intoxication that are probative of impairment. See, e.g , State v. Neal , 2008-NMCA3 008, ¶ 29, 143 N.M. 341, 176 P.3d 330 (observing that the subject’s unsatisfactory 4 performance on field sobriety testing, includi ng his failure to follow instructions and 5 lack of balance, constituted signs of intoxication which supported his conviction for 6 driving under the influence of alcohol); State v. Torres , 1999-NMSC-010, ¶ 31, 127 7 N.M. 20, 976 P.2d 20 (recognizing that most FSTs are self-explanatory and address 8 commonly understood signs of intoxication). Also, other evidence as discussed in the 9 district court’s opinion—De fendant’s erratic driving, odor of alcohol, bloodshot, 10 watery eyes, slurred speech, and breath alc ohol results of .06 and .05, showing the 11 presence of alcohol [RP 95-98]—provided th e fact finder with additional evidence 12 upon which to convict her for DWI. See generally State v. Baldwin , 2001-NMCA-063, 13 ¶ 16, 130 N.M. 705, 30 P.3d 394 (stating that fact finders may draw on their life 14 experiences and understanding of human behavior during a state of intoxication to 15 draw reasonable inferences). 16
{7} For the reasons stated in this opinion and in our notice, we hold that sufficient 17 evidence of DWI was presented. Accordi ngly, we affirm the metropolitan court’s 18 sentencing order. 195 {8} IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 2 3 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 4 WE CONCUR: 5

6 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 7

8 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 9