Court of Appeals of New Mexico

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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.

CITY OF RIO RANCHO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL THOMAS CRISCUOLO, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 29,442

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO

August 12, 2009

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANDOVAL COUNTY, John F. Davis, District Judge.

COUNSEL

Gina R. Manfredi, Assistant City Attorney, Rio Rancho, NM, for Appellee.

Michael T. Criscuolo, Los Lunas, NM, Pro Se Appellant.

JUDGES

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge. WE CONCUR: CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge, CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge

AUTHOR: MICHAEL E. VIGIL

MEMORANDUM OPINION

VIGIL, Judge.

            Defendant, pro se, appeals from the district court judgment and sentence finding him guilty of the charge of no seatbelt, in violation of NMSA 1978, § 66-7-372 (2001). This Court’s first notice proposed summary affirmance. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition to the proposed disposition. We are not persuaded by Defendant’s arguments, and affirm.

            Defendant continues to assert that Section 66-7-372 does not apply because the driving laws are established for drivers, not passengers. [MIO 33] Defendant also questions why he should be charged with a driving infraction when public transportation provides no safety restraints and passengers are not issued traffic citations for no seatbelts. [MIO 33] Section 66-7-372 is contained in the “Safety Belt Use Act,” NMSA 1978, §§ 66-7-370 to -373 (1985, as amended through 2001). Section 66-7-372(A) provides that “each occupant” shall wear a safety belt. The traffic laws are created for traffic safety of all occupants of a motor vehicle, and there is no distinction between drivers and passengers in the statute. Because the statute applies to all occupants of a motor vehicle, we affirm the district court judgment and sentence.

            For these reasons, and those stated in the first notice of proposed disposition, we affirm the district court.

            IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge

WE CONCUR:

CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge

CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge