Opinion
NO. A-1-CA-37768
06-03-2019
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSEPH MULDEZ, 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 Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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
Charles W. Brown, 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
M. ZAMORA, Chief Judge.
{1} Defendant appeals the district court's affirmance of the metropolitan court's decision denying his motion to suppress or, in the alternative, his request for an adverse inference instruction. This Court issued a notice of proposed disposition, proposing to affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm.
{2} On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred by either denying an adverse inference for non-collected evidence or denying suppression of the officer's testimony under State v. Ware, 1994-NMSC-091, ¶ 23, 118 N.M. 319, 881 P.2d 679, based on the
stopping officer's failure to record the entirety of his interaction with Defendant. [MIO 1] Our notice proposed to adopt the district court's recitation of the facts, law, reasoning, and result.
{3} In response, Defendant has not asserted any new facts, law, or argument persuading us that our adoption of the district court's memorandum opinion, as laid out in our calendar notice, is incorrect. 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point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374.
{4} Accordingly, we affirm.
{5} IT IS SO ORDERED.
M. MONICA ZAMORA, Chief Judge
WE CONCUR:
JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge
MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge