Opinion
A-1-CA-40887
10-04-2023
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTINA LORI URIOSTE a/k/a CHRISTINA URIOSTE, Defendant-Appellant.
Raúl Torrez, 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
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 SAN MIGUEL COUNTY ABIGAIL ARAGON, District Court Judge
Raúl Torrez, 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
JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, JUDGE
{¶1} Defendant appeals the district court's order revoking Defendant's probation. 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} In the memorandum in opposition, Defendant maintains that the district court improperly revoked Defendant's probation, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Defendant violated the probation conditions alleged in the State's petition to revoke and that the district court erred by not sanctioning the State for a violation of Rule 5-805 NMRA. [MIO 1] Defendant has failed to assert any new facts, law, or arguments that persuade this Court 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point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374; see also Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955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: JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Chief Judge, KATHERINE A. WRAY, Judge