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 of battery on a household member following a jury trial in the District Court of Doña Ana County.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Douglas R. Driggers, District Judge: Defendant was convicted of battery on a household member.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Filed a memorandum in opposition to the Court's notice of proposed disposition, reasserting the same issues previously addressed and proposed to be rejected (para 2).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued in favor of affirming the Defendant's conviction, as indicated by the Court's decision to affirm without specifying the State's arguments.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's memorandum in opposition presents any new facts, laws, or arguments that could persuade the Court that the notice of proposed disposition was erroneous (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for battery on a household member (para 3).

Reasons

• Per Jennifer L. Attrep, J., with Kristina Bogardus, J., and Shammara H. Henderson, J., concurring: The Court considered the Defendant's memorandum in opposition but found it unpersuasive as it did not present any new facts, laws, or arguments beyond those already considered and proposed to be rejected in the Court's notice of proposed disposition. The Court referenced State v. Mondragon and Hennessy v. Duryea to emphasize the requirement for the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law, which the Defendant failed to do by merely reasserting previously addressed issues (paras 1-3).