AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of criminal sexual contact of a minor under thirteen (CSCM), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-9-13(C)(1) (2003) (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant repeated the presentation of the issues and facts asserted and argued in the Defendant’s docketing statement, without asserting any new facts, law, or argument that could persuade the Court that the notice of proposed disposition was erroneous (para 2).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's repetition of earlier arguments in his memorandum in opposition fulfills the requirement to specifically point out errors of law and fact in response to a summary calendar notice (para 2).
• Whether claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel should be brought pursuant to habeas corpus (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the Defendant’s conviction for criminal sexual contact of a minor under thirteen (para 4).

Reasons

• Per Julie J. Vargas, J., with Kristina Bogardus, J., and Briana H. Zamora, J., concurring:
  The Court found that the Defendant's memorandum in opposition did not present any new facts, law, or arguments that would persuade the Court to reconsider its notice of proposed disposition. The Court emphasized that in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law, which the Defendant failed to do by merely repeating earlier arguments (para 2). Furthermore, the Court agreed that claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel are most properly brought through habeas corpus proceedings, aligning with precedent that expresses a preference for such claims to be addressed in that manner (para 3). Based on these considerations, the Court affirmed the Defendant's conviction (para 4).