State v. Castro
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 33,886 5 ROGELIO CASTRO, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY 8 Jerry H Ritter Jr., District Judge 9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 13 14 15 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender Sergio Viscoli, Assistant Appellate Defender B. Douglas Wood III, Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM 16 for Appellant 17 18 VANZI, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} Defendant has appealed from the revocation of his probation. We previously 2 issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to uphold the 3 district court’s decision. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition, which we 4 have duly considered. Because we remain unpersuaded by Defendant’s assertions of 5 error, we affirm. 6 {2} Defendant has raised a single issue, challenging the district court’s 7 determination that he is not entitled to good time credit on the probation that he was 8 serving concurrently with in-house parole. In the notice of proposed summary 9 disposition we opined that this Court’s recent decision in State v. Ortiz, ___-NMCA10 ___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 31,049, Nov. 13, 2014), provides clear and direct support for 11 the district court’s decision. 12 {3} In the memorandum in opposition Defendant concedes that Ortiz is on point. 13 [MIO 4] However, we understand Defendant to take the position that Ortiz was 14 wrongly decided. [MIO 4-9] To the extent that Defendant invites the Court to 15 reconsider or overturn Ortiz, we decline to do so. 16 {4} Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, as well as the reasons set forth in the 17 notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm. 18 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 1 2 __________________________________ LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 3 WE CONCUR: 4 _________________________________ 5 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 6 _________________________________ 7 J. MILES HANISEE, 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.
