August 5, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Joseph Eddakie, No. A-1-CA-37475

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

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21

Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 8/5/2019 1:00 PM

Hun
er Reynolds

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
V. No. A-1-CA-37475
JOSEPH EDDAKIE,
Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CIBOLA COUNTY
Pedro G. Rael, 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
VANZI, Judge.
4} Defendant appeals from his convictions for aggravated burglary (deadly

weapon, accessory); robbery; larceny of a firearm (accessory); and conspiracy to

commit armed robbery. In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18
19

summary affirmance. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have
duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm.

23 In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to argue that (1) he
suffered prejudice as a result of the trial delay [MIO 1]; and (2) there was insufficient
evidence to support any conviction [MIO 1-2]. Defendant has not asserted any facts,
law, or argument that persuade this Court that our notice of proposed disposition was
erroneous. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, { 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d
683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden
is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or
law.”); State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¥ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003
(stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and
specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments
does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated
in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, § 3, 297 P.3d 374.

3} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and

herein, we affirm Defendant’s convictions.

4; ITISSO ORDERED.

tured Wan
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge

—

WE CONCUR:

— 7 C. ATTREP, Judge

ZACHARYSY TYES, Judge