This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge.

Defendant appeals numerous convictions arising from a domestic dispute. In particular, he attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions. In our second notice, we proposed to affirm all but one of the convictions. We proposed to reverse the conviction for criminal damage to property of another pursuant to State v. Powels, 2003-NMCA-090, 134 N.M. 118, 73 P.3d 256. The State has responded that it does not contest that reversal. With regard to the remaining convictions, Defendant continues to argue that the evidence was insufficient. He does not, however, present us with any further law, facts, or arguments or point out any errors in our analysis. Therefore, we continue to rely on our proposal regarding the sufficiency of the evidence as stated in our first calendar notice. See State v. Sisneros, 98 N.M. 201, 202-03, 647 P.2d 403, 404-05 (1982).

For the reasons set out in the first calendar notice, we affirm the convictions of false imprisonment, two counts of interference with communications, assault on a household member, and battery of a household member. The conviction for criminal damage to property is reversed. This case is remanded to the district court to vacate the conviction for criminal damage to property and to resentence Defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CYNTHIA A. FRY and LINDA M. VANZI, Judges, Concur.