Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,267 documents
Decision Content
STATE V. WILLIAMS
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
ALMA WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 33,869
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
December 16, 2014
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Stan
Whitaker, District Judge
COUNSEL
Gary K. King, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
Law Offices of the Public Defender, Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender, Sergio J. Viscoli, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant
JUDGES
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge. WE CONCUR: MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
SUTIN, Judge.
{1} Defendant Alma Williams filed a docketing statement, appealing from the district court’s affirmance of the metropolitan court’s convictions of Defendant for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, first offense, and speeding. [DS 1, 13; RP 112, 70] In this Court’s notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to affirm Defendant’s convictions and adopt the memorandum opinion of the district court. [CN 1, 2] Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition. We have given due consideration to the memorandum in opposition, and remaining unpersuaded, we affirm Defendant’s convictions.
{2} Defendant continues to make the same arguments that she made in her docketing statement [DS 10-12] and, indeed, in the statement of the issues she filed with the district court in her on-record appeal. [RP 58-62] 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 1-2; see also RP 70-76] 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, and we refer Defendant to the responses therein. [See RP 70-76]
{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 convictions.
{4} IT IS SO ORDERED.
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
WE CONCUR:
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge