Filed: Feb. 21, 2017
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2017
Summary: 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA , Judge . {1} Defendant Juan Delgado ("Defendant")
Summary: 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA , Judge . {1} Defendant Juan Delgado ("Defendant") ..
More
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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
TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge.
{1} Defendant Juan Delgado ("Defendant") appeals from his convictions for burglary, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-3(B) (1971), a fourth degree felony; attempt to commit burglary, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-28-1 (1963) and Section 30-16-3(B), a misdemeanor; possession of burglary tools, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-5 (1963), a fourth-degree felony; and criminal damage to property under $1,000, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-15-1 (1963), a petty misdemeanor. [DS 2] This Court issued a calendar notice reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support the charges and proposing to affirm. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition to this Court's notice of proposed disposition, which we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm.
{2} This Court detailed the facts as alleged in the docketing statement in our notice of proposed disposition and, relying on those facts, proposed to conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support each of the convictions set out above. In response, Defendant maintains that the evidence is insufficient. Defendant, however, points to no error in fact or in law with this Court's notice of proposed disposition. See State v. Ibarra, 1993-NMCA-040, ¶ 11, 116 N.M. 486, 864 P.2d 302 ("A party opposing summary disposition is required to come forward and specifically point out errors in fact and/or law.").
{3} Accordingly, for the reasons articulated in this Court's notice of proposed disposition, we affirm Defendant's convictions.
{4} IT IS SO ORDERED.
LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge and STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge, concurs.
