August 15, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Sherry Tucker, No. A-1-CA-37919

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 	STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
3 	Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 v. 	No. A-1-CA-37919
5 	SHERRY TUCKER,
6 	Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
8 Briana H. Zamora, District Judge
9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
10 Santa Fe, NM
11 	for Appellee
12 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
13 	SantaFe,NM 	.
14 Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender
15 	Albuquerque, NM
16 for Appellant
17 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
18 HANISEE, Judge.
19 	{l} 	Defendant appeals her conviction for larceny (under $250). We issued a
20 	calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant has responded with a memorandum
21 	in opposition. We affirm.
22 	{2} 	Defendant's sole issue on appeal challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 8/15/2019 8:37 AM

1 support her conviction. Her memorandum in opposition does not point out any errors
2 in fact or law in our calendar notice. See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, 1 10,
3 	107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar
4 notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the
5 repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superceded by
6 statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, 13,297 P.3d
7 374. Accordingly, we affirm.
8 {3} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10 	J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
11 	WECONCUR:
1~~~~~ft::;LlL,L-1,.!.-,~_p::..-4~;2.0
1
2