August 6, 2020- State of New Mexico v. Randy Morales, No. A-1-CA-38364

Corrections to this opinion/decision 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/decision is updated accordingly
in Odyssey.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO	1
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,	2
Plaintiff-Appellee,	3
v. 	No. A-1-CA-38364	4
RANDY MORALES,	5
Defendant-Appellant.	6
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY	7
Rosemary Cosgrove-Aguilar, District Judge	8
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General	9
Santa Fe, NM	10
for Appellee	11
Ben A. Ortega	12
Albuquerque, NM	13
for Appellant	14
MEMORANDUM OPINION	15
VARGAS, Judge.	16
{1} 	Defendant appeals his metropolitan court convictions for aggravated DWI,	17
failure to use a turn signal, failure to maintain traffic lane, and expired registration.	18
We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in	19
opposition, which we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm.	20
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 8/6/2020 9:45 AM

2
{2} 	Defendant maintains that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for	1
failing to file two motions to suppress evidence. In support of his argument,	2
Defendant argues that this Court, in analyzing the question of whether the initial	3
traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, should consider the “inception”	4
of the stop from the moment the officer witnessed Defendant’s vehicle touch the	5
white line, rather than at the moment the officer actually engaged his emergency	6
equipment and pulled Defendant over. [MIO 2-3] See State v. Leyva, 2011-NMSC-	7
009, ¶ 10, 149 N.M. 435, 250 P.3d 861 (stating that, in the context of an investigatory	8
detention, the officer’s action must have been justified at the inception of the stop).	9
Defendant fails, however, to support his argument that the inception of the stop	10
occurred prior to the officer actually pulling Defendant over with any citation to	11
authority. “[A]ppellate courts will not consider an issue if no authority is cited in	12
support of the issue and that, given no cited authority, we assume no such authority	13
exists.” State v. Vigil-Giron, 2014-NMCA-069, ¶ 60, 327 P.3d 1129. Additionally,	14
given that Defendant has been unable to provide any authority for this argument, we	15
struggle to see how he could meet his burden to show that his trial counsel’s	16
performance fell below the standard of a reasonably competent attorney by failing	17
to file the identified motions. See State v. Mosley, 2014-NMCA-094, ¶ 19, 335 P.3d	18
244.	19

3
{3} 	Moreover, to the extent Defendant contends that the officer did not have	1
reasonable suspicion to pull him over based on his touching the white line,	2
Defendant’s argument is unavailing. Defendant asserts that, under State v. Siqueiros-	3
Valenzuela, 2017-NMCA-074, 404 P.3d 782, “the [L]egislature did not intend to	4
penalize momentary, brief or minor deviations from driving outside the marked	5
lines.” [MIO 3] We disagree with Defendant’s characterization of this Court’s	6
holding in Siqueiros-Valenzuela. See id. ¶ 22 (holding that officers did not have	7
reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant, despite the defendant crossing over the	8
white line, because the totality of the circumstances demonstrated that the defendant	9
maintained her lane “as nearly as practicable”). In addition, this argument is not well	10
taken because, as discussed in our notice of proposed disposition, the officer	11
observed other traffic violations prior to pulling Defendant over. [See CN 3]	12
{4} 	As such, Defendant has failed to provide any new facts, law, or argument that	13
persuade us that our notice of proposed disposition was erroneous. See Hennessy v.	14
Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have	15
repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing	16
the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”); State v.	17
Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a	18
party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically	19
point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not	20

4
fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v.	1
Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. Accordingly, we refer Defendant to	2
our analysis therein.	3
{5} 	For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Defendant’s convictions.	4
{6} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.	5
______________________________	6
JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge	7
WE CONCUR:	8
_____________________________	9
JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge	10
_____________________________	11
MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge	12