Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,435 documents
Decision Content
STATE V. UPCHURCH
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
AARON J. UPCHURCH,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 31,671
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
July 18, 2012
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY, John
A. Dean, District Judge
COUNSEL
Gary K. King, Attorney General, M. Victoria Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
Jacqueline Cooper, Chief Public Defender, Adrianne R. Turner, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant
JUDGES
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge. WE CONCUR: JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BUSTAMANTE, Judge.
Defendant-Appellant Aaron Upchurch (Defendant) has appealed his convictions for larceny, burglary, conspiracy to commit larceny, and conspiracy to commit burglary. On May 2, 2012, we issued a second notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm in part and reverse in part. The State has filed a response with this Court indicating that it does not oppose our analysis. Defendant has also filed a memorandum in response in which he indicates that he substantially agrees, while renewing his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. With respect to this claim, Defendant advances no new argument. We therefore remain unpersuaded.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the second notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm Defendant’s convictions for larceny, burglary, and conspiracy to commit larceny. We reverse Defendant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit burglary, as well as the habitual offender sentence enhancement, and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
WE CONCUR:
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge