State of New Hampshire v. Aniano Mendez-Torres

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2014-0514, State of New Hampshire v. Aniano
Mendez-Torres, the court on April 6, 2015, issued the following
order:

Having considered the brief, memorandum of law and record submitted
on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See
Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The defendant, Aniano Mendez-Torres, appeals his conviction for driving
after revocation or suspension. See RSA 263:64 (2014). He argues that the State
failed to prove that the vehicle that he was riding when he was stopped was a
“motor vehicle” within the meaning of RSA 259:60.

We briefly set forth the evidence in the record. Nashua Police Officer
Trombley testified that he observed the defendant operating a moped at
approximately 1:00 a.m. on February 2, 2014, on Main Street in Nashua.
Trombley knew from his contact with the defendant earlier on the same evening
that his license was suspended. Trombley described the vehicle that the
defendant was operating as a “green 1978 moped with a New Hampshire [moped]
plate of 1727C.” He also described it as having two wheels, a seat, proper
lighting equipment and a motor. When cross-examined, he did not recall
whether it had pedals or a central footrest. Upon redirect examination, he
testified that it was a validly registered moped in the State of New Hampshire
with a moped license plate.

At the close of evidence, the defendant moved to dismiss the charges on
sufficiency grounds. His arguments included that the State had failed to prove
that he was “riding a motor vehicle” when he was stopped. His motions were
denied and he was convicted.

On appeal, the defendant renews his argument that the State failed to
prove that “the vehicle [he] rode was a motor vehicle.” To prevail on his challenge
to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must prove that no rational trier
of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the
light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. State v. Belleville, 166 N.H. 58, 61 (2014).
 RSA 263:64, I (2014) provides in relevant part: “No person shall drive a
motor vehicle in this state while the person’s driver’s license or privilege is
suspended or revoked.” RSA 259:60, I (2014) defines “motor vehicle” in relevant
part as “any self-propelled vehicle not operated exclusively on stationary tracks,
including ski area vehicles.”

The defendant contends that we must engage in statutory interpretation
and also determine whether the record supports a finding that the vehicle he
rode was capable of self-propulsion to resolve the issue that he raises. We
disagree. To prevail in this appeal, the defendant must satisfy his burden, that
is, he must demonstrate that no rational trier of fact could have found guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the record before us, including Officer
Trombley’s description of the vehicle as a “moped,” and his statement that it bore
a New Hampshire moped license plate, we conclude that the defendant has not
met his burden. See RSA 259:57 (2014) (defining “moped” in part as a “motor-
driven cycle whose speed attainable in one mile is 30 miles per hour or less”);
RSA 261:40 (2014) (establishing violation level offense when motor vehicle, that is
not specifically exempt by statute or rule from registration requirement, is driven
on ways of state); RSA 263:33 (2014) (establishing requirement that operator
hold valid driver’s license, motorcycle license or moped license to drive moped on
any way in state).

Affirmed.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, J.J. concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2