A-1-CA-37768 | Omnilex

Texte intégral

1 	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 	STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
3 	Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 	v . 	NO. A-1-CA-37768
5 JOSEPH MULDEZ,
6 	Defendant-Appellant.
7 	APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
8 Charles W. Brown, District Judge
9 	Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
10 	Santa Fe , NM
11 	for Appellee
12 Bennett J. Baur , Chief Public Defender
13 	Santa Fe , NM
14 	Steven J. Forsberg , Assistant Appellate Defender
15 	Albuquerque , NM
16 	for Appellant
17 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
18 	M. ZAMORA, Chief Judge.
19 	{t} 	Defendant appeals the district court's affirmance of the metropolitan court's
20 	decision denying his motion to suppress or , in the alternative, his request for an
21 	adverse inference instruction. This Court issued a notice of proposed disposition,
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 6/3/2019 8:56 AM

1 proposing to affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have
2 duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm.
3 	{2} 	On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred by either denying an
4 adverse inference for non-collected evidence or denying suppression of the officer's
5 testimony under State v. Ware, 1994-NMSC-091, ,r 23, 118 N.M. 319, 881 P.2d 679,
6 based on the stopping officer's failure to record the entirety of his interaction with
7 Defendant. [MIO 1] Our notice proposed to adopt the district court's recitation of the
8 facts, law, reasoning, and result.
9 	{3} 	In response, Defendant has not asserted any new facts, law, or argument
10 persuading us that our adoption of the district court's memorandum opinion, as laid
11 	out in our calendar notice, is incorrect. See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027,
12 ,r 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary
13 	calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact,
14 	and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded
15 	by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ,r 3, 297
16 P.3d 374.
17 	{4}
18 	{5}
19
20
Accordingly, we affirm.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2

1 WECONCUR:
QUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge
4~ 	f ~5 MEGAN P. nUFF,J ge
3

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21

Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 6/3/2019 8:56 AM

Mark ——

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEX O
STAT™ OF NEW M XICO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
V. NO. A-1-CA-37768
JOSEPH MULDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Charles W. Brown, 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
M. ZAMORA, Chief Judge.
(4). efendant appeals the district court’s affirmance of the metropolitan court’s

dec on denying his motion to suppress or, in the alternative, his request for an

adverse inference instruction. This Court issued a notice of proposed disposition,

1 proposing to affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have
2 duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm.
3 	{2} 	On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred by either denying an
4 adverse inference for non-collected evidence or denying suppression of the officer's
5 testimony under State v. Ware, 1994-NMSC-091, ,r 23, 118 N.M. 319, 881 P.2d 679,
6 based on the stopping officer's failure to record the entirety of his interaction with
7 Defendant. [MIO 1] Our notice proposed to adopt the district court's recitation of the
8 facts, law, reasoning, and result.
9 	{3} 	In response, Defendant has not asserted any new facts, law, or argument
10 persuading us that our adoption of the district court's memorandum opinion, as laid
11 	out in our calendar notice, is incorrect. See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027,
12 ,r 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary
13 	calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact,
14 	and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded
15 	by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ,r 3, 297
16 P.3d 374.
17 	{4}
18 	{5}
19
20
Accordingly, we affirm.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2

1
WE CONCUR:
2) Jacqueline R. Medina
JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge
4 5
Megan P Duffy
MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge
3

June 3, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Joseph Muldez, No. A-1-CA-37768

Texte intégral

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude