State v. Murray

• Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 7, 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• Status: Unpublished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 Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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-38527

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DANNY MURRAY,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY Jane Shuler Gray, 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 from his conviction for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. This Court issued a calendar notice 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} This Court references the facts as alleged in the docketing statement in our notice of proposed disposition, and relying on those facts, proposed to conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction. In response, Defendant “maintains that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly obstructed, resisted or opposed Sgt. Howard in . . . the exercise of his lawful duties.” [MIO 4] In our notice of proposed disposition we also proposed to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to 364 days of detention with 202 days of presentence confinement credit. [CN 3, 4] Defendant continues to assert that “the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to impose probation for the remaining 162 days of his sentence, which he has since completed serving in jail.” [MIO 5-6] Defendant, however, points to no error in fact or law with 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.”). Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we affirm Defendant’s conviction.

{3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge

WE CONCUR:

KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge

ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge