Opinion
No. A-1-CA-38451
10-29-2020
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAUL CARO, Defendant-Appellant.
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Santa Fe, NM Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender Albuquerque, NM for Appellant
This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Alisa A. Hart, District Judge
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Santa Fe, NM
Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VARGAS, Judge.
{1} Defendant appeals from the district court's affirmance of his conviction for driving while under the influence, speeding, and lane violations. In this Court's notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to summarily affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition (MIO), which we have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm.
{2} In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to contend that his convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence because the only evidence presented that he was in fact the driver of the vehicle was circumstantial. [MIO 1] Defendant's memorandum in opposition does not contest any of the facts relied upon in notice of proposed disposition. [Id.] Additionally, Defendant has not asserted any new facts, law, or argument that persuade us that our notice of proposed disposition was erroneous. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 ("Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law."); State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. We therefore refer Defendant to our analysis therein.
{3} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we summarily affirm.
{4} IT IS SO ORDERED.
JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge
WE CONCUR:
JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge
JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge