May 29, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Diamantina Sanchez, No. A-1-CA-36497

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

—

1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20

21

Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 5/29/2019 10:14 AM

ark at

hh

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

_=

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. A-1-CA-36497
DIAMANTINA SANCHEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

Cristina T. Jaramillo, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee
The Law Offices of Ramsey & Hoon, LLC
Twila A. Hoon
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ZAMORA, Chief Judge.
{1} The memorandum opinion filed in this case on April 18, 2019, is hereby
withdrawn, and this opinion is substituted in its place.

23 Defendant appeals from the district court’s affirmance of her convictions after

a jury trial in metropolitan court for aggravated driving while under the influence of

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

intoxicating liquor (DWI), careless driving, driving without a valid driver’s license,
and no insurance. In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to
adopt the district court’s memorandum opinion and summarily affirm. Defendant filed
a memorandum in opposition (MIO), which we have duly considered. Remaining
unpersuaded, we affirm.

3} Defendant continues to assert the same arguments articulated in her docketing
statement. Defendant has not presented any facts, authority, or argument in her
memorandum in opposition that persuade this Court that our proposed reliance on the
district court’s memorandum opinion and our consequent proposed summary
affirmance was incorrect. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, { 24, 124.N.M.
754, 955 P.2d 683 (“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.”); State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, § 10, 107 N.M. 421,
759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must
come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of

earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other

grounds as stated in State vy. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¥ 3, 297 P.3d 374.

wn

7

oo

10
11

4; Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s memorandum opinion,
our notice of proposed disposition, and herein, we adopt the district court’s

memorandum opinion and affirm Defendant’s convictions.

MWh

M. MONICA ZAMORA, Chief Judge

5} ITISSO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

NOTA 3 en ce

LINDA MJ VANZI, Judge

Maan LLL,

MEGAN P. DUFFY, Ju