State v. McCoy

• Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 20, 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• Status: Unpublished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 Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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-38752

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MARK ALLEN MCCOY,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY Daylene A. Marsh, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Santa Fe, NM Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BOGARDUS, Judge.

{1} Defendant appeals from his conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. This Court issued a notice of proposed disposition proposing to affirm the district court’s judgment and sentence. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm.

{2} On appeal, Defendant raises three issues alleging district court error required reversal of his conviction [Amended DS 4], which we proposed to affirm in this Court’s notice of proposed disposition. In response, Defendant continues to assert that (1) Deputy Gonzales should not have been allowed to testify because he was not a credible witness; (2) “[t]here was no violation of law when the driving occurred on a business parking lot and not on a public highway”; and (3) the district court abused its discretion in not granting Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict when he “only moved the vehicle a short distance and thus there was not enough time for him to be in actual physical control” of the vehicle. [MIO 1-2] Defendant, however, points to no error in fact or law in this Court’s notice of proposed disposition. See State v. Ibarra, 1993-NMCA- 040, ¶ 11, 116 N.M. 486, 864 P.2d 302 (“A party opposing summary disposition is required to come forward and specifically point out errors in fact and/or law.”).

{3} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we affirm Defendant’s conviction.

{4} IT IS SO ORDERED.

KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge

WE CONCUR:

JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge

JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge