State v. Pacheco
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 34,178 5 JASON PACHECO, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Charles W. Brown, District Judge 9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 13 Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellant 16 17 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} Defendant Jason Pacheco appeals from the district court’s affirmance of the 2 metropolitan court’s conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicating 3 liquor. [DS 1; RP 1, 78] In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed 4 to affirm Defendant’s convictions and adopt the memorandum opinion of the district 5 court. [CN 1-2] Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition. We have given due 6 consideration to the memorandum in opposition, and, remaining unpersuaded, we 7 affirm Defendant’s convictions. 8 {2} Defendant raises no new arguments apart from those that he made in his 9 docketing statement [DS 11] and in the statement of the issues he filed with the district 10 court in his on-record appeal [RP 49-60]. In this Court’s notice of proposed 11 disposition, we proposed to adopt the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned 12 memorandum opinion in response to Defendant’s arguments. [CN 1-2; see also RP 13 69-75] Defendant has failed to raise any new arguments or issues to convince us to 14 reconsider our proposed adoption of the district court’s memorandum opinion. As 15 such, all of the arguments in Defendant’s memorandum in opposition have been 16 addressed by this Court in its notice of proposed disposition and/or the district court’s 17 memorandum opinion this Court proposed to adopt in our notice of proposed 18 disposition, and we refer Defendant to the responses therein. [See RP 69-75] 2 1 {3} Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed disposition and 2 herein, and for the reasons articulated in the memorandum opinion of the district 3 court, we affirm Defendant’s convictions. 4 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 7 _______________________________________ MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 8 WE CONCUR: 9 10 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 11 12 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, 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.
