February 19, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Mario Gomez, No. A-1-CA-36896

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

10
11
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 2/19/2019 8:20 AM
_ v/s > |
Plaintiff-Appellee, Mark Reynolds
V. No. A-1-CA-36896
MARIO GOMEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DONA ANA COUNTY

Fernando R. Macias, District Judge
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM
Lauren J. Wolongevicz, Assistant Attorney General
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee
L. Helen Bennett, P.C.
L. Helen Bennett
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HANISEE, Judge.
{1} Defendant appeals following the district court entering judgment against him

that included a requirement that Defendant pay restitution to the Metro Narcotics

Agency Contingency Fund. On appeal, Defendant contends that the district court’s

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

requirement that Defendant pay restitution was not a proper legal remedy in this case
and/or, “even if restitution is found to be proper, [he] should not be required to pay
restitution on dismissed conspiracy counts.” [DS 3] This Court issued a second
calendar notice proposing to conclude that, because Defendant was only convicted
on one count of trafficking and the remaining two conspiracy to commit trafficking
charges were dismissed, only $150 of restitution was proper.

{2} In response, the State has filed a notice indicating that it will not file a
memorandum in opposition to this Court’s second calendar notice, and Defendant has
filed a memorandum in opposition continuing to argue that the Metro Narcotics
Agency cannot be a “victim” for the purpose of restitution. As Defendant makes no
new arguments regarding restitution, see State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027,
q 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (providing 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and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superceded
by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, 9 3, 297
P.3d 374, we proceed with summary affirmance, in part, and summary reversal, in

part.

4

{3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

2 wAar—

J. MILES HANISEE, Judge