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 found not guilty for the unlawful accumulation of growth on his property but guilty for the accumulation of garbage, refuse, and debris on his property by the district court. The Defendant appealed the decision, challenging the constitutionality of the City of Alamogordo's ordinances regarding property appearance and alleging misuse of power by the City (paras 1-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (City of Alamogordo): [Not applicable or not found]
• Defendant-Appellant (Carl R. Cantrell): Argued that the City of Alamogordo's ordinances regarding the appearance of property were unconstitutional and that the City's enforcement program should be shut down to prevent abuse of power (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the City of Alamogordo's ordinance on the unlawful growth or accumulation on lots is unconstitutional due to vagueness (para 2).
• Whether the Defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of the City of Alamogordo's ordinances regarding the appearance of property was properly raised before the district court (para 2).

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, maintaining the district court's order finding the Defendant guilty for the accumulation of garbage, refuse, and debris on his property (para 5).

Reasons

• Judges J. Miles Hanisee, Shammara H. Henderson, and Katherine A. Wray concurred in the decision. The Court of Appeals decided to affirm the district court's order because the Defendant did not present any issues for review. The Court noted that while the Defendant argued the City of Alamogordo's ordinances were unconstitutional, he did not provide any new facts, authority, or argument to challenge the district court's ruling on his guilt for violating the ordinance regarding the accumulation of garbage, refuse, and debris. The Court emphasized the importance of presenting clear arguments and the appellant's burden to demonstrate errors in the proposed disposition (paras 1-5).