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. Boyer - cited by 532 documents
State v. Franklin - cited by 481 documents
State v. Lopez - cited by 43 documents
Decision Content
STATE V. WILSON
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
JAMES WILSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 32,984 (Consolidated with 33,091, 33,092, & 33,093)
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
December 3, 2013
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY, Gary L.
Clingman, District Judge
COUNSEL
Gary K. King, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender, Will O’Connell, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant
JUDGES
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge. WE CONCUR: JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VIGIL, Judge.
{1} Defendant, James Wilson, appeals from the district court’s order revoking probation and imposing judgment and sentence. [DS 1] He contends the district court erred by revoking his probation in four different cases because he was not serving a term of probation in these cases at the time he admittedly violated probation in another case. [DS 3] We issued a notice consolidating the four cases and proposing to summarily affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition to our proposed summary affirmance. We remain unpersuaded by Defendant’s arguments and affirm.
{2} In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant argues that he preserved the argument he makes on appeal by raising it orally in the district court. [MIO 2, footnote 1] We thus consider the merits of Defendant’s argument.
{3} In our notice, we proposed to summarily affirm based on State v. Lopez, 2007-NMSC-011, 141 N.M. 293, 154 P.3d 668. We invited Defendant to specifically explain why Lopez is inapplicable. Defendant does not attempt to distinguish Lopez, but continues to argue that the district court erred, relying on State v. Franklin, 1967-NMSC-151, 78 N.M. 127, 428 P.2d 982, and State v. Boyer, 1985-NMCA-029, 103 N.M. 655, 712 P.2d 1. [DS 2] We continue to believe that Lopez controls and thus affirm.
{4} IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
WE CONCUR:
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge