August 22, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Francisco Garcia, No. A-1-CA-37630

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

i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21

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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Filed 8/22/2019 2:07 PM

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, tl
Plaintiff-Appellee, ~L- ;
, ark Reynolds

V. No. A-1-CA-37630

FRANCISCO GARCIA,
Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY
Jane Shuler Gray, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney 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.
44} Defendant appeals from the district court’s judgment and sentence convicting

him of numerous charges. This Court issued a notice of proposed disposition

proposing summary affirmance. [CN 1] Defendant filed amemorandum in opposition

1 to the proposed disposition. We have considered Defendant's arguments and remain
2 unpersuaded. We affirm the judgment and sentence.
3 	{2} 	Defendant concedes that his ineffective assistance of counsel claim is better
4 resolved in habeas corpus proceedings. [MIO 1JInsofar as Defendant continues to
5 argue that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, Defendant has
6 failed to demonstrate any error in this regard. See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060,
7 110, 127 N.M. 393,981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness
8 in the decisions of the district court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of
9 showing such error on appeal). In addition, Defendant does not assert any errors of
10 fact relied upon in the proposed disposition. See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-
11 	027, 110, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a notice
12 	of proposed disposition must come forward and specifically point out errors of law
.13 	and fact), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-
14 NMCA-031, 297 P.3d 374. Accordingly, for these reasons, and those stated in the
15 	notice of proposed disposition, we affirm.
16 	{3}
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2

WE CONCUR:

LINDAM. VANZI, Judge

Mogan PDL

MEGAN’P. DUFFY, Judge