September 10, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Jesus Castillo, No. A-1-CA-37599

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-37599
5 JESUS CASTILLO,
6 	Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY
8 Kea W. Riggs, District Judge
9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
10 Santa Fe, NM
11 	for Appellee
12 	L. Helen Bennett, P.C.
13 	L. Helen Bennett
14 Albuquerque, NM
15 	for Appellant
16
17 VARGAS, Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
18 	{l} 	Defendant appeals from his conviction, after a jury trial, of criminal sexual
19 contact of a child under thirteen (CSCM), contrary to NMSA 1978, Sectio11 30-9-
20 	13(C)(l) (2003). 	In this 	Court's notice ·of proposed disposition, 	we proposed
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 9/10/2019 8:49 AM

1 summary affirmance. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have
2 duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm.
3 	{2} 	In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant repeats the presentation of the
4 issues and facts asserted and argued in Defendant's docketing statement. [MIO 2]
5 Defendant has not asserted any facts, law, or argument that persuade this Court that
6 our notice 	of proposed disposition was 	erroneous. 	See Hennessy 	v. 	Duryea,
7 1998-NMCA-036, ,r 24, 124 N.M. 754,955 P.2d 683 ("Our courts have repeatedly
8 held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the
9 proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law."); State v. Mondragon,
10 	1988-NMCA-027, ,r 10, 107N.M.421, 759P.2d 1003 (statingthatapartyresponding
11 	to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of
12 	law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement),
13 superseded 	by 	statute 	on 	other 	grounds 	as 	stated 	in 	State 	v. 	Harris,
14 2013-NMCA-031, ,I 3,297 P.3d 374.
15 	{3} 	To the extent that Defendant suggests that there may be grounds to argue
16 ineffective assistance of trial counsel, we. agree that such a claim is most properly
17 broughtpursuantto habeas corpus. Statev. Grogan, 2007-NMSC-039, ,I9, 142 N.M.
2

1 107, 163 P .3 d 494 ( expressing a preference for habeas corpus proceedings to address
2 ineffective assistance of counsel claims).
3 	{4} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and
4 herein, we affirm Defendant's conviction.
5 	{s} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
8 WE CONCUR:
9 	~~10 KRITINABoGUs,Judge
11 	~·~12 BRIANA ~,iudg
3