Cano v. Chavez

• Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 10, 2019
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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 Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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-38092

RAUL A. CANO C.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JUDY CHAVEZ,

Defendant-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Valerie A. Huling, District Judge

Raul A. Cano C. Albuquerque, NM Pro Se Appellant

Ron Sanchez Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

MEMORANDUM OPINION

VARGAS, Judge.

{1} Plaintiff has appealed from a defense judgment. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm. Plaintiff has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded.

{2} The pertinent background information and applicable principles have previously been set forth. We will avoid undue reiteration here, and instead focus on the content of the memorandum in opposition.

{3} We understand Plaintiff to continue to argue that he was entitled to judgment in his favor, based upon the evidence that he presented below. [MIO 1] However, Defendant presented conflicting evidence which the trial court deemed to be more credible and compelling. [RP 54-56] As we previously explained, [CN 1-2] although Plaintiff clearly disagrees with the trial court’s assessment, we cannot “re-weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for the trier of fact on appeal.” Serna v. Gutierrez, 2013-NMCA-026, ¶ 29, 297 P.3d 1238; see also In re R.W., 1989-NMCA-008, ¶ 7, 108 N.M. 332, 772 P.2d 366 (“We defer to the trial court, not because it is convenient, but because the trial court is in a better position than we are to make findings of fact and also because that is one of the responsibilities given to trial courts rather than appellate courts.”).

{4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary disposition and above, we affirm.

{5} IT IS SO ORDERED.

JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge

WE CONCUR:

JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge

MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge