Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses - cited by 5,724 documents
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,410 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach Fabricating, Inc. - cited by 251 documents
Hennessy v. Duryea - cited by 657 documents
Decision Content
STATE V. JOHNSON
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 E. JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
NO. A-1-CA-36541
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
March 19, 2018
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY,
Fernando R. Macias, District Judge
COUNSEL
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender, Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Public Defender, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant
JUDGES
LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge. WE CONCUR: J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VANZI, Chief Judge.
{1} Defendant Robert E. Johnson appeals his convictions for two counts of possession of a controlled substance and one count of possession of marijuana, all contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-31-23(A) (2011), [RP 89-92] pursuant to a conditional plea [RP 81-87] that reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress [RP 82]. In response to Defendant’s docketing statement, we proposed to affirm. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition (MIO). After due consideration, we are unpersuaded and therefore affirm.
{2} Defendant has not persuaded us in his MIO that there was an error of law or fact in our proposed disposition. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary disposition and above, we affirm. See Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc., 1990-NMSC-100, ¶ 8, 111 N.M. 6, 800 P.2d 1063 (stating that our appellate courts presume that the trial court is correct and, accordingly, the burden is on the appellant to clearly demonstrate that the trial court erred); Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“[I]n summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”).
{3} IT IS SO ORDERED.
LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge
WE CONCUR:
J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge