Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,472 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
Alexander v. Delgado ex rel. Delgado - cited by 376 documents
State v. Chouinard - cited by 122 documents
State v. Duarte - cited by 121 documents
Decision Content
STATE V. KOREH
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
OZE KOREH,
Defendant-Appellant.
NO. 34,263
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
March 25, 2015
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY,
Christina P. Argyres, District Judge
COUNSEL
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender, Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Public Defender, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant
JUDGES
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge. WE CONCUR: LINDA M. VANZI, Judge, M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
WECHSLER, Judge.
{1} Defendant has appealed from a conviction for DWI. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to uphold the conviction. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.
{2} Defendant has challenged the denial of his motion to suppress based upon the loss of two video recordings. In the notice of proposed summary disposition we opined that the court duly considered the relevant factors, see generally State v. Chouinard, 1981-NMSC-096, ¶¶ 23-24, 96 N.M. 658, 634 P.2d 680, and appropriately concluded that weightier sanctions were not warranted. See, e.g., State v. Duarte, 2007-NMCA-012, ¶¶ 11-12, 140 N.M. 930, 149 P.3d 1027 (arriving at the same conclusion under analogous circumstances).
{3} Defendant does not take issue with our analysis. Instead, he invites the Court to re-examine Chouinard. [MIO 1] We must decline the invitation. See generally Alexander v. Delgado, 1973-NMSC-030, ¶ 9, 84 N.M. 717, 507 P.2d 778 (“[T]he Court of Appeals is to be governed by the precedents of this [C]ourt.).
{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.
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
WE CONCUR:
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge