State v. Molina

Full title: STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FERNANDO MOLINA…

Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Date published: Apr 14, 2022

No. A-1-CA-39937 (N.M. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2022)

Opinion

A-1-CA-39937

04-14-2022

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FERNANDO MOLINA, Defendant-Appellant.

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Charles D. Agoos, Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM for Appellant

JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge.

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in Odyssey.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY Douglas R. Driggers, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Charles D. Agoos, Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge.

{¶1} Defendant appeals his conviction for battery on a household member following a jury trial. In this Court's notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to summarily affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm.

{¶2} Defendant's memorandum in opposition continues to reassert the same issues that we have already addressed and proposed to reject in our notice of proposed disposition. However, Defendant's memorandum in opposition has not asserted any fact, law, or argument that persuades us that our notice of proposed disposition was erroneous. See 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point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374; see also Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955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.").

{¶3} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we affirm.

{¶4} IT IS SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR: KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge, SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge.