 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bruce v. Lester3/5/1999
inder decides issues of causation. See Reichert v. Atler, 117 N.M. 628, 632, 875 P.2d 384, 388 (Ct. App. 1992). Any conflicts in the testimony on the issue of causation are resolved by the factfinder and this Court will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Id. As admitted by Defendant, there was evidence to support the trial court's findings that Defendant was intoxicated and was driving without headlights after dark. Therefore, there was support for the trial court's decision. In addition, in his memorandum in opposition, Defendant provides no new facts or authority to contest the proposal in our calendar notice. See State v. Sisneros, 98 N.M. 201, 202-03, 647 P.2d 403, 404-05 (1982) (opposing party must come forward and specifically point to error in fact or in law in the proposed Disposition).
{7} For the reasons outlined above and those stated in our calendar notice, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
{8} IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
WE CONCUR:
THOMAS A. DONNELLY, Judge
A. JOSEPH ALARID, Judge
|