State v. McBride
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 34,013 5 DAVID MCBRIDE, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LUNA COUNTY 8 Daniel Viramontes, District Judge 9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 13 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 VANZI, Judge. 18 {1} Defendant David McBride appeals his convictions for robbery and conspiracy 19 to commit robbery. In our notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to 1 affirm. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly 2 considered. Because we do not find Defendant’s arguments persuasive, we affirm. 3 Sufficiency of the Evidence 4 {2} Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his 5 convictions. [DS 3-4] He claims that Victim’s identification of Defendant was 6 insufficient because Victim initially testified he could not identify Defendant, and then 7 Victim was recalled to testify and identified Defendant as the third person who beat 8 and robbed him. [DS 2-3] In this Court’s notice of proposed summary disposition, we 9 proposed to hold that the evidence was sufficient. We pointed out that, as an appellate 10 court, we will not second guess the jury’s credibility determinations, reweigh the 11 evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the jury, as long as there is sufficient 12 evidence to support the jury’s verdict. State v. Garcia, 2011-NMSC-003, ¶ 5, 149 13 N.M. 185, 246 P.3d 1057. 14 {3} In Defendant’s memorandum in opposition, he continues to argue that Victim 15 was not credible. [MIO 5] However, he provides no authority that would permit this 16 Court to reweigh the evidence in the manner that he proposes. 17 {4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated here and in our notice, we hold that the 18 evidence was sufficient. 2 1 Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 2 {5} In his docketing statement, Defendant also raised an ineffective assistance of 3 counsel claim because trial counsel failed to file a docketing statement. [DS 5] In his 4 memorandum in opposition, Defendant withdraws this claim. [MIO 6] 5 {6} Therefore, for the reasons stated here and in our notice of proposed summary 6 disposition, we affirm. 7 {7} IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 __________________________________ LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 10 WE CONCUR: 11 _________________________________ 12 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 13 _________________________________ 14 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.
