April 11, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Rufino Urquidi-Castillo, No. A-1-CA-37177

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

—

1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Court of Appeals of New Mexico

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Filed 4/11/2019 9:09 AM
bP
Plaintiff-Appellee, Mark Reynolds |
V. NO. A-1-CA-37177
RUFINO URQUIDI-CASTILLO,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Alisa A. Hart, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Santa Fe, NM
Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VANZI, Judge.
(43 Defendant Rufino Urquidi-Castillo appeals from the district court’s on-record
review and affirmance of his convictions for aggravated driving while under the

influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (DWI) and speeding, following a bench trial

in metropolitan court. [DS 1; RP 32] In our notice of proposed disposition, we

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

proposed to agree with the district court in its factual presentation, analysis, and
conclusion, and proposed to adopt the district court’s memorandum opinion for
purposes of this appeal. [CN 2-3] Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition
(MIO) to this Court’s notice of proposed disposition. We have given due
consideration to the memorandum in opposition, and, remaining unpersuaded, we
affirm Defendant’s conviction.

2}, In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to argue that the State
had a duty to provide the officer’s personal cell phone and/or cell phone records, and
argues that, contrary to our calendar notice, his objection to a “discovery violation”
was preserved. [MIO 1-2] Our notice, however, did not propose to hold that
Defendant failed to preserve any objection based on an alleged discovery violation.
We proposed to adopt the district court’s analysis and conclusion that Defendant
failed to establish a Brady violation, under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),
he did not preserve or identify any other argument related to a source for the duty to
disclose the officer’s personal cell phone records, and he did not argue the
appropriate factors for dismissal or propose an appropriate remedy. [RP 61, 64; CN
2-3] Defendant’s docketing statement stated that he challenged the discovery
violation below under Brady [DS 3-4] and asserted that no authority supported his

position that there was a discovery violation warranting dismissal. [DS 4]

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

{3} In response to our notice, Defendant now suggests that Rule 5-501(A)(3)
NMRA applies without elaborating on how this rule demonstrates error in the district
court’s analysis or contending that any argument made thereunder was preserved in
the metropolitan court or raised in the district court. [MIO 1] See State v. Montoya,
2015-NMSC-010, § 45, 345 P.3d 1056 (“In order to preserve an issue for appeal, a
defendant must make a timely objection that specifically apprises the trial court of the
nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling thereon.”). We also
observe that Rule 5-501 is a rule of criminal procedure for the district courts, not the
metropolitan court. Based on the foregoing, we hold that Defendant’s bald
assertions—that a discovery objection was made and that Rule 5-501 could support
such an objection—do not demonstrate error in the district court’s analysis affirming
the decision of the metropolitan court. See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, { 10,
127 N.M. 393, 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that we presume correctness in the district
court’s rulings and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error).

(44 Furthermore, our notice proposed to adopt the entire analysis of the district
court, including all the grounds set forth therein for affirmance. [CN 2-3] Defendant
has not asserted any fact, law, or argument that persuades us the district court’s
analysis and our adoption thereof was erroneous. [See id.] See Hennessy v. Duryea,

1998-NMCA-036, 4 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly

10

1]
12

13

14
15

16
17

held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the
proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”); State v. Mondragon,
1988-NMCA-027, 7 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, 93, 297 P.3d 374.

{5} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and
herein, we affirm Defendant’s conviction.

{6} IT IS SO ORDERED.

—f id: awa,
LINDA. Mj VANZI, Judge

WE CONCUR:

a L. ATTREP, Judge
Megan P CLL,

MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge”