N.M. Corrections Dep't v. Jones
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 NEW MEXICO CORRECTIONS 3 DEPARTMENT, 4 Petitioner-Appellee, 5 v. No. 32,692 6 TOBIN JONES, 7 Respondent-Appellant. 8 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY 9 James L. Sanchez, District Judge 10 Gary K. King, Attorney General 11 Santa Fe, NM 12 for Appellee 13 Greg Gaudette 14 Los Lunas, NM 15 for Appellant 16 17 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} Respondent Tobin Jones appeals from the district court s order appointing a 2 mental health treatment guardian, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 43-1-15 (2009). 3 In our notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to affirm. Respondent 4 has filed a memorandum in opposition, which this Court has duly considered. Because 5 we do not find Respondent s arguments persuasive, we affirm. 6 Sufficiency of the Evidence 7 {2} Respondent contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the 8 appointment of a mental health treatment guardian. [DS 2, 5] In our notice of 9 proposed summary disposition, we proposed to hold that, viewing the evidence in the 10 light most favorable to the district court s order, there was clear and convincing 11 evidence that Respondent was not capable of making his own treatment decisions. In 12 Respondent s memorandum in opposition, he points out that there was conflicting 13 evidence presented regarding his mental and physical health. [MIO 2] However, when 14 there is substantial evidence to support a district court s decision, the fact that there 15 may have been factual inconsistencies or credibility questions is not a basis for 16 reversal. See State v. Sutphin, 1988-NMSC-031, ¶ 21, 107 N.M. 126, 753 P.2d 1314 17 (providing that a reviewing court does not weigh the evidence and may not substitute 18 its judgment for that of the fact finder so long as there is sufficient evidence to support 19 the verdict ). Accordingly, Respondent has failed to demonstrate that there was 2 1 insufficient evidence to support the district court s appointment of a mental health 2 treatment guardian. 3 Motion for Continuance 4 {3} Respondent contends that the district court erred when it denied his request for 5 a continuance prior to the December 12, 2012, hearing. [DS 4, 5; MIO 2] Respondent 6 claims that a continuance was warranted because he wanted to retain his own counsel 7 and he wanted additional time to prepare for the hearing. [DS 4; MIO 2] 8 {4} In our notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to hold that the 9 district court did not err by denying Respondent s motion for continuance because the 10 hearing was held within the time required by Section 43-1-15(C). In our notice, we 11 also noted that Respondent failed to cite to any authority in support of his assertion 12 that the district court erred in denying his request for continuance, and Respondent 13 failed to demonstrate that he suffered any prejudice as a result of the denial of his 14 motion for continuance. 15 {5} In his memorandum in opposition, Respondent acknowledges that the district 16 court held the hearing within the statutory time requirement. [MIO 2] Additionally, 17 Respondent acknowledges that it is unknown whether the outcome would have been 18 different if the district court had granted his motion for continuance. [MIO 2] Because 19 Respondent s memorandum in opposition fails to point out any errors in fact or law, 3 1 we conclude that the district court did not err when it denied Respondent s request for 2 continuance. [MIO 1-3] See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 3 754, 955 P.2d 683 ( Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, 4 the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors 5 in fact or law. ). 6 {6} For the reasons stated in this Opinion and in our notice of proposed summary 7 disposition, affirm. 8 {7} IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 11 WE CONCUR: 12 13 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 14 15 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
