A-1-CA-38385 | Omnilex

Full text

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-38385	4
BRENAN ROSS,	5
Defendant-Appellant.	6
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY	7
Jacqueline D. Flores, District Judge	8
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General	9
Santa Fe, NM	10
for Appellee	11
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender	12
Santa Fe, NM	13
Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender	14
Albuquerque, NM	15
for Appellant	16
MEMORANDUM OPINION	17
VARGAS, Judge.	18
{1} 	Defendant appeals the district court’s order affirming his metropolitan court	19
convictions for driving while intoxicated and driving without headlamps. This Court	20
issued a notice of proposed disposition, proposing to adopt the memorandum opinion	21
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 7/13/2020 9:15 AM

2
of the district court and affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, which	1
we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm.	2
{2} 	On appeal, Defendant contends that that the metropolitan court applied the	3
incorrect legal standard in light of the mandate upon remand from this Court. The	4
district court affirmed the metropolitan court’s application of the Supreme Court’s	5
current case law rather than this Court’s overruled mandate. Our notice proposed to	6
affirm, stating that the district court issued a thorough, well-reasoned memorandum	7
opinion, presenting the facts and arguments of the case and the district court’s	8
analysis in response thereto. [CN 2] We proposed to agree with the district court in	9
its factual presentation, analysis, and conclusion, and proposed to adopt the district	10
court’s 	memorandum 	opinion 	for 	purposes 	of 	this 	appeal. 	[CN 	2] 	In 	his	11
memorandum in opposition, Defendant raises no new objections to the analysis this	12
Court proposed to adopt, and we remain unpersuaded that the district court reached	13
an erroneous conclusion. [MIO 1-2]	14
{3} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in this Court’s notice of	15
proposed disposition, we adopt the memorandum opinion of the district court and	16
affirm.	17
{4} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.	18
_________________________________	19
JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge	20

3
WE CONCUR:	1
_________________________________	2
J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge	3
_________________________________	4
MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge	5

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

fe)
6)

11
12
13
14
15
16)
17
18
19)
20

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

a vi 3/0020 9:15 AM
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, °

Plaintiff-A ppellee, Hue
Mark Reynolds
V. NO. A-1-CA-38385
BRENAN ROSS,
Defendant- Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

8| J aoqueline D. Flores, District J udge

Hector H. Balderas, Attomey General
Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Santa Fe, NM
Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VARGAS, Judge.
{1} | Defendant appeals the district court’s order affirming his metropolitan court
convictions for driving while intoxicated and driving without headlamps. This Court

issued a notice of proposed disposition, proposing to adopt the memorandum opinion

2
of the district court and affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, which 1
we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm. 2
{2} On appeal, Defendant contends that that the metropolitan court applied the 3
incorrect legal standard in light of the mandate upon remand from this Court. The 4
district court affirmed the metropolitan court’s application of the Supreme Court’s 5
current case law rather than this Court’s overruled mandate. Our notice proposed to 6
affirm, stating that the district court issued a thorough, well-reasoned memorandum 7
opinion, presenting the facts and arguments of the case and the district court’s 8
analysis in response thereto. [CN 2] We proposed to agree with the district court in 9
its factual presentation, analysis, and conclusion, and proposed to adopt the district 10
court’s memorandum opinion for purposes of this appeal. [CN 2] In his 11
memorandum in opposition, Defendant raises no new objections to the analysis this 12
Court proposed to adopt, and we remain unpersuaded that the district court reached 13
an erroneous conclusion. [MIO 1-2] 14
{3} Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in this Court’s notice of 15
proposed disposition, we adopt the memorandum opinion of the district court and 16
affirm. 17
{4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 18
_________________________________ 19
JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge 20

1
WE CONCUR:
4 5 2 3
J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge
Megan P Duffy
MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge
3

July 13, 2020- State of New Mexico v. Brenan Ross, No. A-1-CA-38385

Full text

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude