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on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
JOSUE OROZCO
Defendant-Appellant.
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY, Freddie
J. Romero, District Judge
Hector Balderas, Attorney General, Santa
Fe, NM, for Appellees
Jorge Alvarado, Chief Public Defender,
Santa Fe, NM, J. K. Theodosia Johnson, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe,
NM, for Appellant
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge. WE CONCUR:
RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
{1} Defendant appeals
his conviction for aggravated assault (deadly weapon). We issued a calendar
notice proposing to affirm. Defendant has responded with a memorandum in
opposition. We affirm.
{2} Defendant continues
to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for
aggravated assault (deadly weapon). A sufficiency of the evidence review
involves a two-step process. Initially, the evidence is viewed in the light
most favorable to the verdict. Then the appellate court must make a legal
determination of “whether the evidence viewed in this manner could justify a
finding by any rational trier of fact that each element of the crime charged
has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Apodaca,
1994-NMSC-121, ¶ 6,
118 N.M. 762,
887 P.2d 756 (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
{3} In order to convict
Defendant of aggravated assault (deadly weapon), the evidence had to show that
he unlawfully assaulted the victim or struck him with a deadly weapon.
See
NMSA 1978, §
30-3-2(A) (1963). An assault includes a situation where any
unlawful act, threat or menacing conduct causes another person to reasonably
believe that he is in danger of receiving an immediate battery.
See NMSA
1978, §
30-3-1(B) (1963).
{4} In this case
Defendant had a bench trial. The district court found that Defendant entered
the victim’s house late at night and confronted him about alleged defamatory
statements. As he did so, Defendant pointed a loaded gun at the victim. Based
on this evidence, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support
Defendant’s conviction.
{5} To the extent that
Defendant’s docketing statement attempted to raise a second issue, the issue
has been abandoned.
See State v. Johnson,
1988-NMCA-029, ¶ 8,
107
N.M. 356,
758 P.2d 306 (explaining that when a case is decided on the summary
calendar, an issue is deemed abandoned when a party fails to respond to the
proposed disposition of that issue).
{6} For the reasons set
forth above, affirm.
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge
RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge