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on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
RAYMOND DEAL,
Defendant-Appellant.
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
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 James Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender, Albuquerque,
NM, for Appellant
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge. WE CONCUR: J.
MILES HANISEE, Judge, STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge
{1} Defendant Raymond
Deal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment and
sentence for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, entered
following a jury trial. [DS 3] Defendant’s docketing statement asserted that
the trial evidence included testimony from the arresting officer, a BAC card
showing .07, and a dash-cam video of Defendant performing field sobriety tests
before his arrest. [DS 2-3] This Court issued a calendar notice proposing to
affirm on the basis that, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, a
rational trier of fact could have determined that Defendant was driving while
impaired. [CN 3] Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition to that proposed
disposition.
{2} In that memorandum,
Defendant continues his general assertion that the evidence was insufficient to
support his conviction. We remain unpersuaded.
See State v. Mondragon,
1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10,
107 N.M. 421,
759 P.2d 1003 (explaining that the
repetition of earlier arguments does not meet a party’s burden to come forward
and specifically point out errors of law or fact in a notice of proposed
summary disposition,
superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in
State v. Harris,
2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3,
297 P.3d 374)). Accordingly, for the
reasons stated in this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we affirm
Defendant’s conviction.