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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 33,795 4 WILLIAM VAN ZILE, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Kenneth H. Martinez, 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 Sergio J. Viscoli, Assi stant Appellant 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 entered pursuant to a jury trial at 202 which Defendant was found guilty of DWI per se . 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 therefore affirm. 4 {2} Defendant raises two issues on appeal. First, Defendant ar gues that the trial 5 court erred in admitting the breath-alcohol-test (BAT) card containing his test results 6 into evidence. [DS 11; MIO 10-13] Second, Defendant argues that there was 7 insufficient evidence presented to support his conviction for DWIper se. [DS 11; 8 MIO 13-16] 9 {3} Our notice detailed the relevant facts fo r each issue and set forth the law that 10 we believed controlled. Applyi ng the facts to the law, we proposed to conclude that: 11 (1) because the State met the foundational requirements for admission, the district 12 court did not err in admitting the BAT card; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to 13 support Defendant’s conviction. We do not reiterate our anal ysis detailed in the notice 14 here. 15 {4} Defendant’s response to our notice conti nues to argue that the district court 16 erred in admitting the BAT card. In re sponse to our notice, Defendant cites State v. 17 Martinez , 2007-NMSC-025, 141 N.M. 713, 160 P.3d 894, for the proposition that the 18 time between the test and the driving is relevant to the admission of the BAT card. 193 [MIO 11] However, Martinezdoes not support Defendant’s position, and for the 1 reasons set forth in our proposed notice, we hold that admission of the BAT card did 2 not constitute fundamental error. 3 {5} With respect to Issue II, Defendant’s account of the evidence does not 4 contradict the facts upon which our notice proposed to rely. Further, Defendant’s 5 response does not assert any ne w factual or legal argument that persuades this Court 6 that our notice was incorrect regarding the sufficiency of the ev idence. Therefore, on 7 the basis of our proposed analysis, we hold that sufficient evidence supports 8 Defendant’s conviction. 9 {6} Based on the foregoing, we affirm th e metropolitan court’s sentencing order. 10 {7} IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

12 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 13 WE CONCUR: 14

15 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 16

17 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 18