Court of Appeals of New Mexico

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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
MELINDA VEGA,
Defendant-Appellant.

No. 35,647

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO

September 26, 2016

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Briana H. Zamora, District Judge

COUNSEL

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender, Santa Fe, NM, Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant

JUDGES

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge. WE CONCUR: TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE Judge

AUTHOR: MICHAEL E. VIGIL

MEMORANDUM OPINION

VIGIL, Chief Judge.

{1}       Defendant Melinda Vega appeals from the district court’s affirmance of her conviction after a jury trial in metropolitan court for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. [DS 2, 5; RP 3, 36, 110, 115, 119] In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to adopt the district court’s memorandum opinion affirming the conviction. [CN 2] Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm Defendant’s conviction.

{2}       Defendant raises no new arguments apart from those that she made in her docketing statement [DS 5] and in the statement of the issues she filed with the district court in her on-record appeal [RP 98]. In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to adopt the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned memorandum opinion in response to Defendant’s arguments. [CN 2; see also RP 110-14] Defendant has failed to raise any new arguments or issues to convince us to reconsider our proposed adoption of the district court’s memorandum opinion. As such, all of the arguments in Defendant’s memorandum in opposition have been addressed by this Court in its notice of proposed disposition and/or the district court’s memorandum opinion this Court proposed to adopt in our notice of proposed disposition, and we refer Defendant to the responses therein. [See RP 110-14]

{3}       Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, and for the reasons articulated in the memorandum opinion of the district court, we affirm Defendant’s conviction.

{4}       IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge

WE CONCUR:

TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge

J. MILES HANISEE Judge