Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,435 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
State v. Garcia - cited by 143 documents
State v. Ibarra - cited by 251 documents
State v. Johnson - cited by 173 documents
Decision Content
STATE V. ROBINSON
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
EARL SCOTT ROBINSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 32,344
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
February 18, 2013
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Neil
C. Candelaria, District Judge
COUNSEL
Gary K. King, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
Earl Scott Robinson, Albuquerque, NM, Pro Se Appellant
JUDGES
CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge. WE CONCUR: RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
FRY, Judge.
Defendant appeals from the district court’s memorandum order denying his motion to dismiss entered in district court case CR-1999-3961. This Court’s first notice proposed to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition to the proposed disposition. We are not persuaded by Defendant’s arguments and dismiss the appeal.
Defendant’s memorandum in opposition does not respond to this Court’s proposed disposition, or otherwise explain that the order was final. “A party opposing summary disposition is required to come forward and specifically point out errors in fact and/or law.” State v. Ibarra, 116 N.M. 486, 489, 864 P.2d 302, 305 (Ct. App. 1993); see State v. Johnson, 107 N.M. 356, 358, 758 P.2d 306, 308 (Ct. App. 1988) (providing that when a case is decided on the summary calendar, an issue is deemed abandoned where a party fails to respond to the proposed disposition of the issue). As discussed in our calendar notice, the memorandum order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss is not a final judgment. See State v. Garcia, 99 N.M. 466, 471, 659 P.2d 918, 923 (Ct. App. 1983) (stating that in a criminal case, the final judgment is the judgment and sentence or an order dismissing all the charges against the defendant).
For these reasons, and those stated in the first calendar notice, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge
WE CONCUR:
RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge