May 26, 2020- Antonio B. Gallegos v. Kristian Pettine Gallegos, No. A-1-CA-38011

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.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 ANTONIO B. GALLEGOS,
3 Petitioner-Appellee,
4 v. No. A-1-CA-38011
5 KRISTIAN PETTINE GALLEGOS,
6 Respondent-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY
8 Maria Eufemia Sanchez-Gange, District Judge
9 Antonio B. Gallegos
10 Santa Fe, NM
11 Pro Se Appellee
12 Kristian Pettine Gallegos
13 Santa Fe, NM
14 Pro Se Appellant
15 MEMORANDUM OPINION
16 VANZI, Judge.
17 {1} Respondent, who is self-represented, appeals from an order of protection. We
18 issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Respondent has filed a memorandum in
19 opposition. We affirm.
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 5/26/2020 10:17 AM

2
1 {2} Respondent continues to argue that the abuse did not occur, and that the district
2 court should have believed Respondent’s version of events. However, we defer to the
3 district court, sitting as fact-finder, to resolve issues of credibility. See Skeen v.
4 Boyles, 2009-NMCA-080, ¶ 37, 146 N.M. 627, 213 P.3d 531 (stating that when the
5 district court hears conflicting evidence, “we defer to its determinations of ultimate
6 fact, given that we lack opportunity to observe demeanor, and we cannot weigh the
7 credibility of live witnesses”). To the extent that Defendant is arguing that she was
8 a victim of a conspiracy, this too was a matter for the fact-finder to resolve, and not
9 an appellate court. Finally, with respect to Petitioner’s motion to terminate the order
10 of protection, which was granted by the district court in October 2019, this does not
11 require us to revisit the facts that were presented to the district judge when the order
12 was first issued; to the contrary, the termination of the order of protection merely
13 lends support for the determination that this appeal is now moot. In short,
14 Defendant’s memorandum in opposition does not persuade us that our calendar notice
15 was incorrect. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955
16 P.2d 683 (stating that “[o]ur courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar
17 cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point
18 out errors in fact or law”).

3
1 {3} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
2 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
4 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
5 WE CONCUR:
6 ______________________________
7 J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge
8
9 ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge