STATE v. DELGADO

No. 36,051.

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUAN DELGADO, Defendant-Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Hector H. Balderas , Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee.

Bennett J. Baur , Chief Public Defender, Kathleen T. Baldridge , Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant.


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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ZAMORA, Judge.

{1} Juan Delgado (Defendant) appeals from his jury trial convictions of two counts of non-residential burglary. [DS 2; RP 95, 102] This Court issued a notice proposing to affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm.

{2} Defendant argued in his docketing statement the district court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict as to each of the counts of burglary. [DS 4] In our notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to hold, based on the facts set forth in the docketing statement, the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions. [CN 4] In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to argue the evidence was insufficient to prove he committed burglary but does not point to any errors in law or fact in this Court's notice of proposed disposition. [MIO 4] "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. See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003, superseded by statute on other grounds by State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, 297 P.3d 374. Because Defendant has not demonstrated the district court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict, we hold his convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and affirm.

{3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge and HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge, concurs.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases