Opinion
NO. 32,984 C/w 33,091 C/w 33,092 C/w 33,093
12-03-2013
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Gary K. King, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender Will O'Connell, Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM for Appellant
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY
Gary L. Clingman, District Judge Gary K. King, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender
Will O'Connell, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VIGIL, Judge. {1} Defendant, James Wilson, appeals from the district court's order revoking probation and imposing judgment and sentence. [DS 1] He contends the district court erred by revoking his probation in four different cases because he was not serving a term of probation in these cases at the time he admittedly violated probation in another case. [DS 3] We issued a notice consolidating the four cases and proposing to summarily affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition to our proposed summary affirmance. We remain unpersuaded by Defendant's arguments and affirm. {2} In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant argues that he preserved the argument he makes on appeal by raising it orally in the district court. [MIO 2, footnote 1] We thus consider the merits of Defendant's argument. {3} In our notice, we proposed to summarily affirm based on State v. Lopez, 2007-NMSC-011, 141 N.M. 293, 154 P.3d 668. We invited Defendant to specifically explain why Lopez is inapplicable. Defendant does not attempt to distinguish Lopez, but continues to argue that the district court erred, relying on State v. Franklin, 1967-NMSC-151, 78 N.M. 127, 428 P.2d 982, and State v. Boyer, 1985-NMCA-029, 103 N.M. 655, 712 P.2d 1. [DS 2] We continue to believe that Lopez controls and thus affirm.
{4} IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ _________
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
WE CONCUR:
/s/ _________
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge /s/ _________
CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge