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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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

NO. A-1-CA-36886

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO

November 26, 2018

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY, Daylene A. Marsh, District Judge

COUNSEL

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

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

JUDGES

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge. WE CONCUR: J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge

AUTHOR: MICHAEL E. VIGIL

MEMORANDUM OPINION

VIGIL, Judge.

{1}       Defendant Raymond Deal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment and sentence for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, entered following a jury trial. [DS 3] Defendant’s docketing statement asserted that the trial evidence included testimony from the arresting officer, a BAC card showing .07, and a dash-cam video of Defendant performing field sobriety tests before his arrest. [DS 2-3] This Court issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm on the basis that, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational trier of fact could have determined that Defendant was driving while impaired. [CN 3] Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition to that proposed disposition.

{2}       In that memorandum, Defendant continues his general assertion that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We remain unpersuaded. See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (explaining that the repetition of earlier arguments does not meet a party’s burden to come forward and specifically point out errors of law or fact in a notice of proposed summary disposition, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374)). Accordingly, for the reasons stated in this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we affirm Defendant’s conviction.

{3}       IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge

WE CONCUR:

J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge