Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Decision Information

Citations - New Mexico Laws and Court Rules
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 10,055 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
State v. Harris - cited by 516 documents
State v. Mondragon - cited by 625 documents

Decision Content

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  Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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-42418

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

NATHAN MAESTAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY
Richard M. Jacquez, District Court Judge

Raúl Torrez, Attorney General

Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender

Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender

Santa Fe, NM

for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DUFFY, Judge.

{1}       Defendant appeals from his judgment and sentence for possession of a stolen vehicle. We entered a notice of proposed disposition, proposing to affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition to that notice, which we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm.

{2}       Our notice of proposed disposition suggested affirmance was appropriate because sufficient evidence supported Defendant’s conviction. [CN 4] In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to maintain, based on the same theories, that insufficient evidence supported his conviction. [MIO 30-32] See 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point out errors of law and fact” and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. We therefore remain unpersuaded that Defendant has demonstrated that the calendar notice was in error.

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

{4}       IT IS SO ORDERED.

MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge

WE CONCUR:

ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge

GERALD E. BACA, Judge

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.