State v. Johnson

• Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 18, 2021
• Status: Unpublished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 Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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-38437

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JUSTIN JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY Cindy M. Mercer, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM

for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HANISEE, Chief Judge.

{1} Defendant appeals a number of convictions following a jury trial. In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to summarily affirm. After consideration of Defendant’s memorandum in opposition to our first notice of proposed disposition, we issued a second notice of proposed disposition. We again proposed to summarily affirm. Defendant filed a second memorandum in opposition, which relied on the facts and arguments contained within his first memorandum in opposition and informed this Court that Defendant did not intend to file a second memorandum in opposition containing additional facts or argument. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm. {2} Defendant has not asserted any fact, law, or argument in his second memorandum in opposition that persuades us that our first and second notices of proposed disposition were erroneous. See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374; see also Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”). Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our first and second notices of proposed disposition and herein, we affirm Defendant’s convictions.

{3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge

WE CONCUR:

JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge

MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge