Court of Appeals of New Mexico

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.  Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.  Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-39728

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DESTANY LUCKYSTAR WATKINS,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TORRANCE COUNTY
Shannon Murdock, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

Santa Fe, NM

John Kloss, Assistant Attorney General

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender

Santa Fe, NM

Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BOGARDUS, Judge.

{1}       Defendant appeals from the district court’s orders revoking her probation. We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm.

{2}       In her memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to argue that she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the evidence was insufficient to revoke her probation. Defendant has not asserted any facts, law, or argument that persuade us that our notice of proposed disposition was erroneous. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”); State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. To the extent Defendant raised issues in her docketing statement that were not argued in the memorandum in opposition, we deem those issues abandoned. See State v. Johnson, 1988-NMCA-029, ¶ 8, 107 N.M. 356, 758 P.2d 306 (explaining that when a case is decided on the summary calendar, an issue is deemed abandoned when a party fails to respond to the proposed disposition of that issue).

{3}       Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we affirm.

{4}       IT IS SO ORDERED.

KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge

WE CONCUR:

JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge

JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge