State v. Urioste (Unpublished Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computergenerated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO No. A-1-CA-40887 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTINA LORI URIOSTE a/k/a CHRISTINA URIOSTE, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTY ABIGAIL ARAGON, District Court Judge Raúl Torrez, 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 MEDINA, Judge. {1} Defendant appeals the district court’s order revoking Defendant’s probation. In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to summarily affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm. {2} In the memorandum in opposition, Defendant maintains that the district court improperly revoked Defendant’s probation, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Defendant violated the probation conditions alleged in the State’s petition to revoke and that the district court erred by not sanctioning the State for a violation of Rule 5-805 NMRA. [MIO 1] Defendant has failed to assert any new facts, law, or arguments that persuade this Court that our notice of proposed disposition was erroneous. See 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point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374; see also Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955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.”). {3} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we affirm. {4} IT IS SO ORDERED. JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge WE CONCUR: JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Chief Judge KATHERINE A. WRAY, Judge
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.
