June 25, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Richard G. Rees, No. A-1-CA-37811

1 	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 	STATEOFNEWMEXICO,
3 	Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 v. 	No. A-1-CA-37811
5 RICHARD G. REES,
6 	Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY
8 Drew D. Tatum, 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 MJ Edge, Assistant Appellate Defender
15 	Albuquerque, NM
16 for Appellant
17 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
18 	M. ZAMORA, Chief Judge.
19 	{1} 	Defendant appeals his convictions for possession of a controlled substance,
20 contrary 	to 	NMSA 	1978, 	Section 	30-31-23 	(2011), 	and 	possession 	of drug
21 	paraphernalia, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-31-25.1 (2001). In this Court's
22 notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to summarily affirm. Defendant filed a
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 6/25/2019 11:46 AM

I 	memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we
2 affirm.
3 	{2} 	In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to argue that the
4 evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Specifically, Defendant asserts
5 the 	evidence 	was 	insufficient 	to 	prove 	Defendant 	knowingly 	possessed
6 methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. [MIO 7-8] However, as we explained in
7 our calendar notice, direct evidence of knowledge and intent is rarely available and
8 such elements may be proved by circumstantial evidence. [CN 4] See State v. Ortiz,
9 2017-NMCA-006, 123, 387 P.3d 323. In light of Defendant's admissions to the
IO 	officer 	that 	he 	had 	gotten 	high 	earlier 	that 	day· and 	that 	he 	had 	used
11 	methamphetamine before, and additionally that the methamphetamine was located
12 in Defendant's bag and the drug paraphernalia was located on Defendant's person,
13 	we do not agree with Defendant that the jury made unreasonable inferences as to his
14 knowledge.
15 	{3} 	Defendant has not otherwise asserted any facts, law, or argument in his 	-,
16 memorandum in opposition that persuade this Court that our notice of proposed
17 disposition was erroneous. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, 124, 124
18 N .M. 7 54, 95 5 P .2d 683 ("Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar
19 cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point
20 	out errors in fact or law."); State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, 110, 107 N.M.
2

1 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice
2 must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the
3 repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by
4 statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-03 l,, 3,297 P.3d
5 374.
6 	{4} 	Accordingly, for the reasops stated in our notice of proposed disposition and
7 herein, we affirm Defendant's convictions.
8 {5}
9
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12 WE CONCUR:
1s 	~L.42,;16 JE~~.ATTREP,Judge
M. MONICA ZAMO
3