February 13, 2020- State of New Mexico v. Israel Ramirez, No. A-1-CA-37926

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-37926	4
ISRAEL RAMIREZ,	5
Defendant-Appellant.	6
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY	7
Fred T. Van Soelen, District Judge	8
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General	9
Eran S. Sharon, Assistant Attorney General	10
Santa Fe, NM	11
for Appellee	12
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender	13
Nina Lalevic, Assistant Appellate Defender	14
Santa Fe, NM	15
for Appellant	16
MEMORANDUM OPINION	17
VANZI, Judge.	18
{1} 	Defendant has appealed from the district court’s order denying his second	19
motion to change conditions of probation. We issued a notice proposing to affirm the	20
district court’s refusal to change his probationary restrictions and noted that Defendant	21
has since obtained the relief he sought through a stipulation to change the plea	22
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 2/13/2020 11:22 AM

2
agreement. Our notice also proposed to reject Defendant’s claim of ineffective	1
assistance of counsel and cumulative error. In response, Defendant filed a combined	2
memorandum in opposition and motion to amend the docketing statement to challenge	3
his sentence and a wholly different order of the district court, related to the length of	4
Defendant’s probation, rather than the conditions of his probation. Defendant’s	5
response does not specifically discuss or challenge our proposed analysis of the issues	6
raised in the docketing statement. Thus, we affirm the district court’s order denying	7
his second motion to change conditions of probation for the reasons discussed in our	8
notice and do not address those issues further. See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-	9
027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (affirming for the reasons stated in a notice	10
where the party responding to the notice did not specifically point out errors of law	11
or fact). We limit our analysis to the assertions made in Defendant’s motion to amend	12
the docketing statement.	13
{2} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.	14
__________________________________	15
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge	16
WE CONCUR:	17
_________________________________	18
JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge	19
_________________________________	20
ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge	21