This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was convicted of receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle. The Defendant contested the conviction, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the conviction. (paras 1-2)
Procedural History
- District Court, Socorro County: The Defendant was convicted of receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle. (headnotes)
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle. (para 2)
- Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction. (para 3)
Reasons
Per Ives J. (Attrep C.J. and Yohalem J. concurring): The Court found that the Defendant's memorandum in opposition did not present any new facts, law, or arguments that would persuade the Court to deviate from its proposed disposition to affirm the conviction. The Court noted that merely repeating earlier arguments without pointing out specific errors of law or fact does not meet the requirement for challenging a summary calendar notice. Consequently, the Court remained unpersuaded that the notice of proposed disposition was erroneous and affirmed the conviction. (paras 1-3)