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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
EULALIO CHÁVEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.

NO. 30,997

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO

May 31, 2011

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY, Stephen Bridgforth, District Judge

COUNSEL

Gary King, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee

Jacqueline L. Cooper, Acting Chief Public Defender, Karl Erich Martell, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant

JUDGES

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

AUTHOR: MICHAEL E. VIGIL

MEMORANDUM OPINION

VIGIL, Judge.

Defendant appeals his convictions for criminal sexual contact of a minor and battery. In this Court’s notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to affirm. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. As we are not persuaded by Defendant’s arguments, we affirm.

In this Court’s notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to conclude that the victims’ testimony that Defendant touched them in the manner charged was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions. Although Defendant argued, pursuant to State v. Franklin, 78 N.M. 127, 129, 428 P.2d 982, 984 (1967), and State v. Boyer, 103 N.M. 655, 658-60, 712 P.2d 1, 4-6 (Ct. App. 1985), that the victims’ testimony was not credible, we pointed out that this Court does not assess the credibility of witnesses, State v. Salas, 1999-NMCA-099, ¶ 13, 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 482, and that we are required to view the evidence, and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence, in the light most favorable to the verdict, see State v. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 26, 128 N.M. 711, 998 P.2d 176.

Defendant has responded with a memorandum in opposition, in which, again pursuant to Franklin and Boyer, he points to evidence introduced at trial that would call the victims’ credibility into question and that would support his version of events. Defendant has provided no new facts, authority, or legal analysis that would persuade this Court that its proposed summary disposition was erroneous. Therefore, for the reasons stated in this opinion and in our notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge

WE CONCUR:

CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge

CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge