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 residential burglary. Following the conviction, the Defendant appealed the decision.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doa Ana County, Susan M. Riedel, District Judge: The Defendant was convicted of residential burglary.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: The Defendant relied on the facts, authorities, and arguments contained in his initial memorandum in opposition to the appeal.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's judgment and sentence for the Defendant's conviction of residential burglary should be affirmed.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence for the Defendant's conviction of residential burglary.

Reasons

• Per James J. Wechsler, with Michael D. Bustamante, Judge, and Timothy L. Garcia, Judge concurring: The Court remained convinced that the proposed disposition to affirm the Defendant's conviction for residential burglary, as set out in their third calendar notice, was correct. The Defendant's decision not to file a memorandum in opposition to the latest calendar notice, but instead to rely on the initial memorandum in opposition, did not alter the Court's decision to affirm the district court’s judgment and sentence (para 1).