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on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
NATHANIEL JIM,
Defendant-Appellant.
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY,
Briana H. Zamora, District Judge
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General,
Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender,
Vicki W. Zelle, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge. WE CONCUR:
RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
AUTHOR: MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE
{1} Defendant Nathaniel
Jim appeals from the district court’s judgment in an on-record appeal,
affirming the metropolitan court’s sentencing order entered upon the conviction
of Defendant for aggravated DWI under NMSA 1978, Section
66-8-102(D)(3) (2010)
and leaving the scene of an accident contrary to NMSA 1978, Section
66-7-202
(1978). Unpersuaded by Defendant’s docketing statement, we issued a notice of
proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm. Defendant has filed a
memorandum in opposition to our notice. We remain unpersuaded and therefore
affirm.
{2} Defendant
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. [DS 10;
MIO 8-14] In our notice, we indicated that the district court’s memorandum
opinion, which addressed the same issues raised in this appeal, thoroughly
detailed the relevant facts, correctly set forth the applicable standards of
review and relevant law, and proposed to adopt portions of the district court’s
opinion. Persuaded that the district court’s opinion was correct, we directed
Defendant to demonstrate why the district court’s opinion and our reliance on
it was incorrect if he wanted this Court to reach conclusions that differed
from those reached by the district court.
{3} In response,
Defendant reiterates the same arguments that he articulated in his docketing
statement and in his statement of issues, [RP 136-39; MIO 8-14] which was
considered by the district court below and by this Court prior to issuing our
notice. Specifically, relevant to Defendant’s conviction for leaving the scene
of an accident, Defendant continues to assert that there was insufficient
evidence that Defendant was the motorist that hit Mr. Sanchez’s vehicle. [MIO
8-11] Additionally, Defendant continues to assert that factors other than
impairment were the cause of his driving, balance and behavior. [MIO 11-14] We
are not persuaded by Defendant’s arguments. These assertions were fully
addressed by the district court’s opinion, and Defendant has not presented any
authority or argument that convinces this Court that our proposed disposition
agreeing with the district court’s opinion was incorrect.
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, we conclude that there was
sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions for the reasons set
forth in the district court’s opinion.
{4} Based on the
foregoing, we affirm.
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge