State v. Campbell
This text of State v. Campbell (State v. Campbell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
3 Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 v. No. 32,462
5 PETER CAMPBELL,
6 Defendant-Appellant.
7 Gary K. King, Attorney General 8 Santa Fe, NM
9 for Appellee
10 Border Law Office 11 Dean E. Border 12 Albuquerque, NM
13 for Appellant
14 MEMORANDUM OPINION
15 FRY, Judge.
16 Defendant, Peter Campbell, appeals from his convictions for battery on a police
17 officer; aggravated battery on a police officer; assault on a peace officer; and resisting,
18 evading or obstructing an officer. [DS 1, RP 62] Our calendar notice proposed to 1 summarily affirm and Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition. We remain
2 unpersuaded by Defendant’s arguments and affirm.
3 BACKGROUND
4 Defendant continues to argue: (1) his convictions should be reversed because
5 he was arrested without a warrant, which was required under the circumstances, (2)
6 his convictions should be reversed because the jury was not instructed it had to find
7 the officers were acting in the lawful discharge of their duties at the time of the
8 alleged assault/battery, (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his
9 trial counsel did not raise either of the first two issues in the district court. [DS 6]
10 DISCUSSION
11 In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant does not raise any new legal
12 arguments or new facts supporting his claims. See State v. Sisneros, 98 N.M. 201,
13 202-03, 647 P.2d 403, 404-05 (1982) (party opposing proposed disposition in calendar
14 notice “must come forward and specifically point out errors in fact and law”).
15 CONCLUSION
16 We remain persuaded that our proposed disposition was correct and, for the
17 reasons stated in our calendar notice, affirm Defendant’s convictions.
18 IT IS SO ORDERED.
2 1 2 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge
3 WE CONCUR:
4 5 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
6 7 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Campbell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-campbell-nmctapp-2013.