February 20, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Joseph Montoya, No. A-1-CA-37298

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-37298
5 JOSEPH MONTOYA,
6 	Defendant-Appellant.
7 	APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY
8 Daniel A. Bryant, District Judge
9 	Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
10 	Santa Fe, NM
11 	for Appellee
12 L. Helen Bennett, P.C.
13 	Linda Helen Bennett
14 Albuquerque , NM
15 	for Appellant
16
17 	VANZI, Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
18 	{t} 	Defendant appeals from a district court judgment and sentence entered after a
19 jury 	found 	him 	guilty 	of one 	count 	of felony 	shoplifting 	and 	one 	count 	of
20 	misdemeanor shoplifting. We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant
21 	has responded with a memorandum in opposition. We affirm.
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 2/20/2019 9:47 AM
Mark Reynolds

l 	{2} 	Issue 1: Defendant continues to claim that the State failed to disclose unedited
2 security surveillance video footage from all camera positions on the two days that the
3 shoplifting incidents took place. [MIO 2] "In order to establish a Brady violation, the
4 petitioner must show that: ( 1) the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence
5 was favorable to the accused; and (3) the evidence was material to the defense." Case
6 v. Hatch, 2008-NMSC-024, 1 44, 144 N.M. 20, 183 P.3d 905 (internal quotation
7 marks and citation omitted).
8 	{3} 	Our calendar notice pointed out that Defendant's docketing statement failed to
9 provide any facts that establish that he satisfied his burden to show a Brady violation,
10 and we would not presume error. See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, 110, 127
11 	N.M. 393, 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the
12 	rulings or decisions of the district court, and the party claiming error bears the burden
13 	of showing such error). Defendant's memorandum does not refer us to specific
14 	objections that were raised below, the State's response to these objections, or the
15 	district court's basis for any ruling. As such, we conclude that Defendant did not
16 	establish that a Brady violation actually occurred.
17 	{4} 	Issue 7: Defendant continues to claim that he should have been allowed to
18 	represent himself. [MIO 5] Our calendar notice observed that Defendant failed to
19 	show that he preserved the issue. See State v. Leon, 2013-NMCA-Ol l, 133,292 P.3d
2

1 493 ("We generally do not consider issues on appeal that are not preserved below."
2 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). We also stated that Defendant failed
3 to provide sufficient facts to review the issue. See State v. 	Chamberlain, 	1989-
4 NMCA-082, ,-r 11, 109 N.M. 173, 783 P.2d 483 (stating that where an appellant fails
5 "to provide us with a summary of all the facts material to consideration of [his or her]
6 issue, as required by [Rule 12-208(D)(3) NMRA], we cannot grant relief on [that]
7 ground").
8 	{5} 	In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant maintains that he repeatedly told
9 the judge that he was unhappy with counsel and wanted to represent himself. [MIO
10 	6] Again, however, Defendant has not provided sufficient facts to establish error. He
11 	has not informed this Court of when he raised the issue with the district court, or what
12 the court's response was. We therefore presume correctness of the district court's
13 	ruling, because Defendant has not established that he raised the issue in a timely
14 	manner. See State v. Garcia, 2011-NMSC-003, ,-r 26, 149 N.M. 185, 246 P.3d 1057
15 	(noting that a defendant must raise the issue in a timely manner and citing case law
16 	that holds that raising the issue mid-trial is untimely).
17 	{6} 	Issues 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9: Defendant has not provided any new argument on
18 	these issues. See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ,-r 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759
19 P.2d 1003 ( stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come
3

1 forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier
2 	arguments does not fulfill this requirement).
3 {7} 	For the reasons set forth above, we affirm.
4 	{8}
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7 	WE CONCUR:
10 	t.,_ ~11 	KRIS INA BOGARDUS, Judge
4