Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,423 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
State v. Desnoyers - cited by 62 documents
State v. Ernesto M. (In re Ernesto M.) - cited by 358 documents
State v. Forbes - cited by 38 documents
Decision Content
STATE V. BOYNTON
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ROBERT BOYNTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 32,902
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
October 17, 2013
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY, William G.
Shoobridge, District Judge
COUNSEL
Gary K. King, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
The Sawyers Law Group, James W. Klipstine, Jr., Hobbs, NM, for Appellant
JUDGES
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge. WE CONCUR: TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge, M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BUSTAMANTE, Judge.
{1} Defendant appeals his conviction for fourth degree felony larceny over $500.00, which was enhanced due to his habitual offender status. [RP 167] Our notice proposed to affirm and Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition. We remain unpersuaded by Defendant’s arguments and therefore affirm.
{2} Defendant continues to argue that the district court erred in allowing the State to use evidence it had not disclosed prior to trial. [DS 4; MIO 1-2] See generally State v. Desnoyers, 2002-NMSC-031, ¶ 25, 132 N.M. 756, 55 P.3d 968 (providing that we review the admission of evidence involving alleged discovery violations for abuse of discretion), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Forbes, 2005-NMSC-027, 138 N.M. 264, 119 P.3d 144. As provided in our notice, even if the evidence was not disclosed by the State in this case, Defendant nonetheless did have notice that the photos would be used well before trial given the State’s disclosure of the evidence in another case that was eventually dismissed. [DS 3; MIO 2] See generally In re Ernesto M., 1996-NMCA-39, ¶ 10, 121 N.M. 562, 915 P.2d 318 (“An assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice.”). Given the lack of prejudice of any non-disclosure, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
{3} For the reasons set forth herein and in our notice, we affirm.
{4} IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
WE CONCUR:
TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge