A-1-CA-38092 | Omnilex

Texto completo

Corrections to this opinion not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with NM
Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion is updated accordingly in Odyssey.
1 	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 RAUL A. CANO C.,
3 	Plaintiff-Appellant,
4 v. 	No. A-1-CA-38092
5 JUDY CHAVEZ,
6 	Defendant-Appellee.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
8 Valerie A. Huling, District Judge
9 Raul A. Cano C.
10 Albuquerque, NM
11 	Pro Se Appellant
12 Ron Sanchez
13 	Albuquerque, NM
14 for Appellee
15
16 VARGAS, Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
17 	{1} 	Plaintiff has appealed from a defense judgment. 	We previously issued a notic
18 	of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm. Plaintiff has filed
19 a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded.
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 9/10/2019 10:26 AM

1 {2} 	The 	pertinent 	background 	information 	and 	applicable 	principles 	have
2 previously been set forth. We will avoid undue reiteration here, and instead focus on
3 the content of the memorandum in opposition.
4 {3} 	We understand Plaintiff to continue to argue that he was entitled to judgment
5 in his favor, based upon the evidence that he presented below. [MIO 1] However,
6 Defendant presented conflicting evidence which the trial court deemed to be more
7 credible and compelling. [RP 54-56] As we previously explained, [CN 1-2] although
8 Plaintiff clearly disagrees with the trial court's assessment, we cannot "re-weigh the
9 evidence or substitute our judgment for the trier of fact on appeal." Serna v.
10 	Gutierrez, 2013-NMCA-026, 129, 297P.3d l238;seealsolnreR. W., 1989-NMCA-
11 	008, 17, 108 N.M. 332, 772 P.2d 366 ("We defer to the trial court, not because it is
12 convenient, but because the trial court is in a better position than we are to make
13 	findings of fact and also because that is one of the responsibilities given to trial courts
14 rather than,appellate courts.").
15 	{4} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary
16 	disposition and above, we affirm.
17 {5}
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2

1 WECONCUR:
2.~~-¥-A~~~~~~~~q
3
4 	'])j 	.P[) ~5 ~-DUFFY,J d
2

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

12
13

Corrections to this opinion not affecting the outcome, at the Court’s discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with NM
Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion is updated accordingly in Odyssey.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
RAUL A. CANO C., Filed 9/10/2019 10:26 AM
Plaintiff-Appellant, . A. we .
Mark Reynolds
Vv. No. A-1-CA-38092
JUDY CHAVEZ,
Defendant-Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

Valerie A. Huling, District Judge

Raul A. Cano C.
Albuquerque, NM

Pro Se Appellant

Ron Sanchez
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

MEMORANDUM OPINION
VARGAS, Judge.
4} + Plaintiffhas appealed from a defense judgment. We previously issued a notice
of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm. Plaintiff has filed

a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded.

1 {2} The pertinent background information and applicable principles have
2 previously been set forth. We will avoid undue reiteration here, and instead focus on
3 the content of the memorandum in opposition.
4 {3} We understand Plaintiff to continue to argue that he was entitled to judgment
5 in his favor, based upon the evidence that he presented below. [MIO 1] However,
6 Defendant presented conflicting evidence which the trial court deemed to be more
7 credible and compelling. [RP 54-56] As we previously explained, [CN 1-2] although
8 Plaintiff clearly disagrees with the trial court's assessment, we cannot "re-weigh the
9 evidence or substitute our judgment for the trier of fact on appeal." Serna v.
10 Gutierrez, 2013-NMCA-026, 129, 297P.3d l238;seealsolnreR. W., 1989-NMCA-
11 008, 17, 108 N.M. 332, 772 P.2d 366 ("We defer to the trial court, not because it is
12 convenient, but because the trial court is in a better position than we are to make
13 findings of fact and also because that is one of the responsibilities given to trial courts
14 rather than,appellate courts.").
15 {4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary
16 disposition and above, we affirm.
17 {5}
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2

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

September 10, 2019- Raul A. Cano C. v. Judy Chavez, No. A-1-CA-38092

Texto completo

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude