A-1-CA-37824 | Omnilex

Texto completo

1 	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 	LA WREN CE ROMERO and
3 	GLORIA ROMERO,
4 	Plaintiffs-Appellees,
5 v. 	No. A-1-CA-37824
6 	CAMILLA BRISCOE,
7 	Defendant-Appellant.
8 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY
9 Jason Lidyard, District Judge
10 Lawrence Romero
11 	Gloria Romero
12 	Espanola, NM
13 	Pro Se Appellees
14 Camilla Briscoe
15 	Hernandez, NM
16 Pro Se Appellant
17 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
18 	M. ZAMORA, Chief Judge.
19 	{I} 	Defendant appeals from the district court's order requiring that she pay
20 	restitution. This Court issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant has
21 	filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Remaining
22 	unpersuaded, we affirm.
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 5/21/2019 11:22 AM

1 {2} 	"Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden
2 	is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or
3 law." Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036,, 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683. In
4 her memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to ask this Court to reweigh the
5 evidence presented to the district court. As we noted in our calendar notice, this Court
6 does not reweigh the evidence or reassess credibility on appeal. See Las Cruces Prof'!
7 Fire Fighters v. City ofLas Cruces, 1997-NMCA-044,, 12, 123 N.M. 329, 940 P.2d
8 	177 (stating that "we will not reweigh the evidence nor substitute our judgment for
9 that of the fact[-]finder"); see also Skeen v. Boyles, 2009-NMCA-080,, 37, 146 N.M.
10 	62 7, 213 P .3 d 5 31 ( stating that, when the district court hears conflicting evidence,
11 	"we defer to its determinations of ultimate fact, given that we lack opportunity to
12 	observe demeanor, and we cannot weigh the credibility of live witnesses"); State v.
13 	Salas, 1999-NMCA-099 ,, 13, 127 N.M. 686,986 P.2d 482 (recognizing that it is for
14 the fact-finder to resolve any conflict in the testimony of the witnesses and to
15 	determine where the weight and credibility lie).
16 	{3} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in our notice of proposed
17 disposition, we affirm the district court's order.
2

1 {4}
2
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4 WE CONCUR:
. 	'
59' .~
6 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
M. MONICA ZAMO
3

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 5/21/2019 11:22 AM

Ane E24

—

10
11
12
13

14
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Mark
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW V™X7T~O

" AWR” NCE ROM RO and
GLORIA ROMERO,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,
V. No. A-1-CA-37824
CAMILLA RISCOE,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY
Jason ™ idyard, ~ istrict Judge

Lawrence Romero
Gloria Romero
Espanola, NM
Pro Se Appellees

Camilla Briscoe
Hernandez, NM

Pro Se Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION
M. ZAMORA, - hief Judge.
4; Defer ‘int >peals from the district court’s order requirir~ that she pay
restitution. This Court issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant has
filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Remaining

unpersuaded, we affirm.

Reynolds

1 {2} 	"Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden
2 	is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or
3 law." Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036,, 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683. In
4 her memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to ask this Court to reweigh the
5 evidence presented to the district court. As we noted in our calendar notice, this Court
6 does not reweigh the evidence or reassess credibility on appeal. See Las Cruces Prof'!
7 Fire Fighters v. City ofLas Cruces, 1997-NMCA-044,, 12, 123 N.M. 329, 940 P.2d
8 	177 (stating that "we will not reweigh the evidence nor substitute our judgment for
9 that of the fact[-]finder"); see also Skeen v. Boyles, 2009-NMCA-080,, 37, 146 N.M.
10 	62 7, 213 P .3 d 5 31 ( stating that, when the district court hears conflicting evidence,
11 	"we defer to its determinations of ultimate fact, given that we lack opportunity to
12 	observe demeanor, and we cannot weigh the credibility of live witnesses"); State v.
13 	Salas, 1999-NMCA-099 ,, 13, 127 N.M. 686,986 P.2d 482 (recognizing that it is for
14 the fact-finder to resolve any conflict in the testimony of the witnesses and to
15 	determine where the weight and credibility lie).
16 	{3} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in our notice of proposed
17 disposition, we affirm the district court's order.
2

1 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED.
2 3 4
M. MONICA ZAMORA, Chief Judge
WE CONCUR:
5 6
J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
7 8
Megan PDuffy
MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge
3

May 21, 2019- Lawrence Romero v. Camilla Briscoe, No. A-1-CA-37824

Texto completo

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude