August 15, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Charles Jackson, No. A-1-CA-37820

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

ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20

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 THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Court of Appeals of New Mexico

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, a a

Plaintiff-Appellee, Al. ~fe4

Mark Reynolds

V. No. A-1-CA-37820
CHARLES JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DONA ANA COUNTY
Douglas R. Driggers, District Judge
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
John C. Bennett, Assistant Appellant Defender
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VARGAS, Judge.
3 Defendant appeals following his convictions for trafficking a controlled

substance. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing

to uphold the convictions. Defendant has filed a combined memorandum in

1 opposition and motion to amend the docketing statement. After due consideration, we
2 remain unpersuaded by Defendant's assertions of error. We therefore affirm.
3 	{2} 	We will begin with the motion to amend, by which Defendant seeks to
4 challenge the district court's imposition of two seventy-five dollar crime victim
5 reparations fees, one for each of his felony convictions. [MIO 3-5] Defendant argues
6 that insofar as the district court elected to run the correlative sentences concurrently,
7 only one fee should have been imposed. [MIO 4-5] We perceive no merit to this
8 contention. The relevant statute makes clear that the district courts "shall assess and
9 collect" a seventy-five dollar crime victims reparation fee upon conviction for a
10 felony offense, "in addition to any sentence required or permitted by law." NMSA
11 	1978, § 31-12-13(A) (2015). Insofar as. this language unambiguously provides that
12 the mandatory fees must be levied in addition to any sentence, it is clear that the
13 	manner in which sentences are imposed is immaterial; accordingly the district court's
14 election to 	run 	Defendant's 	sentences 	concurrently 	has 	no 	bearing 	upon 	the
15 	imposition of the mandatory fees. See State v. Block, 2011-NMCA-101,, 17, 150
16 N.M. 598,263 P.3d 940 ("Under the plain meaning rule, when a statute's language
17 is clear and unambiguous, we will give effect to the language and refrain from further
18 	statutory interpretation." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). We note
19 that the various published authorities cited by Defendant are not on point. [CN 4-5]
2

1 We therefore conclude that Defendant's argument is not viable. Accordingly, the
2 motion to amend is denied. See State v. Sommer, 1994-NMCA-070, ,-f 11, 118 N.M.
3 58, 878 P .2d 1007 (indicating that issues sought to be presented in a motion to amend
4 the docketing statement must be viable; if they are not, the motion will be denied).
5 	{3} 	We tum next to the issues originally articulated in the docketing statement and
6 renewed in the memorandum in opposition. Because the relevant background
7 information has previously been set forth, we will avoid undue reiteration, and instead
8 focus on the specific arguments articulated in the memorandum in opposition.
9 {4} 	First, Defendant renews his argument that he was denied discovery of text
10 messages which he contends were deleted by law enforcement officers. [MIO 6- 7] As
11 	we 	previously 	observed, 	[CN2] 	this 	argument 	is 	premised 	on 	Defendant's
12 unsubstantiated assertions that the text messages existed. Insofar as the district court
13 	was at liberty to reject that factual premise, we reject the assertion of error. See, e.g.,
14 Statev. Turrietta, 2013-NMSC-036, ,-f 39,308 P.3d 964 (rejecting a defendant's claim
15 	that his due 	proGess 	rights were violated based on the prosecution's alleged
16 suppression of favorable evidence, where the defendant failed to establish that the
17 additional files existed).
18 {5} 	Relatedly, Defendant contends that this case should be assigned to the general
19 calendar in order to resolve the "factual dispute" as to whether the files in question
3

1 existed, and were withheld. [MIO 7-9] However, this Court is not a fact-finding
2 tribunal. See State v. Gonzales, 1999-NMCA-027, 'if 13, 126 N.M. 742,975 P.2d 355
3 ("The vantage of the appellate bench is a poor one from which to assess credibility
4 and perform other components of the fact-finding task."). Clearly, Defendant's
5 assertions were at odds with the testimony of one or more law enforcement officers,
6 	[DS 5] and under the circumstances, the district court was at liberty to reject
7 Defendant's position. See State v. Dawson, 1999-NMCA-072, 'if 16, 127 N.M. 472,
8 983 P .2d 421 ( observing that it is for the district court as fact-finder to evaluate
9 credibility, and explaining that the district court is not required to credit a defendant's
10 assertions or protestations). We perceive no basis for second-guessing the district
11 	court's resolution of this matter. See Turrietta, 2013-NMSC-036, 'if 39 (explaining,
12 in a similar situation, that the district court is in the best position to evaluate whether
13 	any prosecutorial misconduct occurred).
14 {6} 	Finally, Defendant renews _his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence,
15 	without further elabor~tion. [MIO 9] We adhere to our initial assessment. [CN 3-5]
16 {7} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary
17 disposition and above, we affirm.
4

1} 833 ITISSO ORDERED.

4 WE CONCUR:

6] MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge