Court of Appeals of New Mexico

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  Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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-41260

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DOMENIQUE DEAN SEDILLO,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SOCORRO COUNTY
Mercedes C. Murphy, District Court Judge

Raúl Torrez, 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

IVES, Judge.

{1}       Defendant appeals his conviction for receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle. [DS 2] We entered a notice of proposed disposition, proposing to affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition to that notice, which we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm. 

{2}       Our notice of proposed disposition proposed to affirm because it appeared that sufficient evidence supported Defendant’s conviction. [CN 4] In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to maintain, based on the same theory raised in his docketing statement, that insufficient evidence supported his conviction. [MIO 5; DS 3] See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that “[a] party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact” and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. Defendant’s memorandum in opposition has therefore not asserted any fact, law, or argument that persuades us that our notice of proposed disposition was erroneous. See id. As a result, we remain unpersuaded that Defendant has demonstrated that the calendar notice was in error.

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

{4}       IT IS SO ORDERED.

ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge

WE CONCUR:

JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Chief Judge

JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge