Court of Appeals of New Mexico

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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
ROGELIO CASTRO,
Defendant-Appellant.

No. 33,886

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO

February 12, 2015

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY, Jerry H Ritter Jr., District Judge

COUNSEL

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee

Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender, Sergio Viscoli, Assistant Appellate Defender, B. Douglas Wood III, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant

JUDGES

LINDA M. VANZI, Judge. WE CONCUR: MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

AUTHOR: LINDA M. VANZI

MEMORANDUM OPINION

VANZI, Judge.

{1}       Defendant has appealed from the revocation of his probation. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to uphold the district court’s decision. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Because we remain unpersuaded by Defendant’s assertions of error, we affirm.

{2}       Defendant has raised a single issue, challenging the district court’s determination that he is not entitled to good time credit on the probation that he was serving concurrently with in-house parole. In the notice of proposed summary disposition we opined that this Court’s recent decision in State v. Ortiz, ___-NMCA-___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 31,049, Nov. 13, 2014), provides clear and direct support for the district court’s decision.

{3}       In the memorandum in opposition Defendant concedes that Ortiz is on point. [MIO 4] However, we understand Defendant to take the position that Ortiz was wrongly decided. [MIO 4-9] To the extent that Defendant invites the Court to reconsider or overturn Ortiz, we decline to do so.

{4}       Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, as well as the reasons set forth in the notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm.

{5}       IT IS SO ORDERED.

LINDA M. VANZI, Judge

WE CONCUR:

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge

J. MILES HANISEE, Judge