State v. Box
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, 4 v. NO. 33,845 5 JOHN BOX, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY 8 James Waylon Counts, District Judge 9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 J. Robert Beauvais, P.A. 13 J. Robert Beauvais 14 Ruidoso, NM 15 for Appellant 16 17 WECHSLER, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} Defendant John Box filed a docketing statement, appealing his convictions for 2 driving while under the influence (fifth offense), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 663 8-102(A), (H) (2010) and failure to give immediate notice of accident, contrary to 4 NMSA 1978, Section 66-7-206 (1991). [DS 1, 3; RP 21, 33, 46, 107] This Court 5 issued a calendar notice, proposing to summarily affirm the convictions. Defendant 6 has filed no memorandum in opposition to our notice of proposed disposition. 7 {2} We note that, in June 2014, Defendant filed a motion for appointment of 8 appellate counsel. [RP 120] The State did not concur because there was no showing 9 of indigency. [RP 120] A hearing was held that same month, and the district court 10 temporarily appointed the appellate public defender for the purposes of filling out an 11 indigent form because the court found that there was insufficient cause to find 12 Defendant indigent. [RP 137] Although that order was entered nearly a year ago, it 13 does not appear from the record, the docket, or the No. 1 file that the appellate public 14 defender was ever appointed to represent Defendant in his appeal. Accordingly, it 15 appears that Mr. Beauvais is still counsel for Defendant. Thus, as Defendant, 16 represented by private counsel, received our notice of proposed disposition but failed 17 to file a memorandum in response to our notice of proposed disposition, for the 18 reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition, we affirm Defendant’s 19 convictions. 2 1 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 ________________________________ JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 4 WE CONCUR: 5 ________________________________ 6 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 7 ________________________________ 8 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 3
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.
