State v. Flores
This text of State v. Flores (State v. Flores) 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 33,449
5 LARRY FLORES,
6 Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY 8 Steven L. Bell, District Judge
9 Gary K. King, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM
11 for Appellee
12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 Sergio J. Viscoli, Assistant Public Defender 15 Albuquerque, NM
16 for Appellant
17 MEMORANDUM OPINION
18 HANISEE, Judge.
19 {1} Defendant appeals his conviction for one count of unlawful taking of a motor
20 vehicle. [RP 131, 137, 140] In Defendant’s docketing statement, he argued, pursuant 1 to State v. Franklin, 1967-NMSC-151, 78 N.M. 127, 428 P.2d 982 and State v. Boyer,
2 1985-NMCA-029, 103 N.M. 655, 712 P.2d 1, that there was insufficient evidence to
3 support his conviction. In this Court’s notice of proposed summary disposition, we
4 proposed to affirm. In response to this Court’s notice, Defendant has filed a
5 memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Because we do not find
6 it persuasive, we affirm.
7 {2} In Defendant’s memorandum in opposition, he continues to make the same
8 arguments raised in his docketing statement. “Our courts have repeatedly held that,
9 in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed
10 disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.” Hennessy v. Duryea,
11 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683. Defendant’s memorandum
12 provides no facts or authority that this Court has not already considered or that
13 persuade this Court that its proposed summary disposition should not be made.
14 {3} Accordingly, for the reasons stated here and in our notice of proposed summary
15 disposition, we affirm.
16 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED.
2 1 2 J. MILES HANSIEE, Judge
3 WE CONCUR:
4 5 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
6 7 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, 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. Flores, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-flores-nmctapp-2014.