This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HANISEE, Judge.

{1} Defendant appeals his conviction for one count of unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. [RP 131, 137, 140] In Defendant's docketing statement, he argued, pursuant to State v. Franklin, 1967-NMSC-151, 78 N.M. 127, 428 P.2d 982 and State v. Boyer, 1985-NMCA-029, 103 N.M. 655, 712 P.2d 1, that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. In this Court's notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to affirm. In response to this Court's notice, Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Because we do not find it persuasive, we affirm.

{2} In Defendant's memorandum in opposition, he continues to make the same arguments raised in his docketing statement. "Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law." Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683. Defendant's memorandum provides no facts or authority that this Court has not already considered or that persuade this Court that its proposed summary disposition should not be made.

{3} Accordingly, for the reasons stated here and in our notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm.

{4} IT IS SO ORDERED.

JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge and RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge, concurs.