Opinion
NO. 30,999
08-05-2011
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAWLE NICHOLAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Gary K. King, Attorney General William Lazar, Assistant Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Jacqueline L. Cooper, Acting 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 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 OTERO COUNTY
David I. Rupp, District Judge
Gary K. King, Attorney General
William Lazar, Assistant Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellee
Jacqueline L. Cooper, Acting Chief Public Defender
Will O'Connell, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VIGIL, Judge.
Defendant appeals numerous convictions arising from a domestic dispute. In particular, he attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions. In our second notice, we proposed to affirm all but one of the convictions. We proposed to reverse the conviction for criminal damage to property of another pursuant to State v. Powels, 2003-NMCA-090, 134 N.M. 118, 73 P.3d 256. The State has responded that it does not contest that reversal. With regard to the remaining convictions, Defendant continues to argue that the evidence was insufficient. He does not, however, present us with any further law, facts, or arguments or point out any errors in our analysis. Therefore, we continue to rely on our proposal regarding the sufficiency of the evidence as stated in our first calendar notice. See State v. Sisneros, 98 N.M. 201, 202-03, 647 P.2d 403, 404-05 (1982).
For the reasons set out in the first calendar notice, we affirm the convictions of false imprisonment, two counts of interference with communications, assault on a household member, and battery of a household member. The conviction for criminal damage to property is reversed. This case is remanded to the district court to vacate the conviction for criminal damage to property and to resentence Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL E. VIGIL , Judge
WE CONCUR:
CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge