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
Hennessy v. Duryea - cited by 657 documents
State v. Boyer - cited by 532 documents
State v. Franklin - cited by 481 documents
Decision Content
STATE V. FLORES
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
LARRY FLORES,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 33,449
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
May 20, 2014
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY, Steven
L. Bell, District Judge
COUNSEL
Gary K. King, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender, Santa Fe, NM, Sergio J. Viscoli, Assistant Public Defender, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant
JUDGES
J. MILES HANSIEE, Judge. WE CONCUR: JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HANISEE, Judge.
{1} Defendant appeals his conviction for one count of unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. [RP 131, 137, 140] In Defendant’s docketing statement, he argued, pursuant to State v. Franklin, 1967-NMSC-151, 78 N.M. 127, 428 P.2d 982 and State v. Boyer, 1985-NMCA-029, 103 N.M. 655, 712 P.2d 1, that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. In this Court’s notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to affirm. In response to this Court’s notice, Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Because we do not find it persuasive, we affirm.
{2} In Defendant’s memorandum in opposition, he continues to make the same arguments raised in his docketing statement. “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.” Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683. Defendant’s memorandum provides no facts or authority that this Court has not already considered or that persuade this Court that its proposed summary disposition should not be made.
{3} Accordingly, for the reasons stated here and in our notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm.
{4} IT IS SO ORDERED.
J. MILES HANSIEE, Judge
WE CONCUR:
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge