State v. Jones
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 34,267 5 AMY JONES, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Jacqueline Flores, District Judge 9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 13 Vicki W. Zelle, Assistant Appellate Public Defender 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellant 16 17 WECHSLER, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} Defendant Amy Jones filed a docketing statement, appealing from the district 2 court’s affirmance of her convictions by bench trial for driving while under the 3 influence of intoxicating liquor (first offense), contrary to NMSA 1978, § 66-8-102 4 (2010), and stop sign violation, contrary to NMSA 1978, § 66-7-330 (1978). [DS 1; 5 RP 3, 12, 14] In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to adopt the 6 memorandum opinion of the district court and affirm. [CN 2–3] After extension 7 granted, Defendant timely filed a memorandum in opposition (MIO). We have given 8 due consideration to the memorandum in opposition, and, remaining unpersuaded, we 9 affirm Defendant’s convictions. 10 {2} As a prefatory matter, we note that a party responding to a proposed disposition 11 of this Court must point out specific errors in fact or law. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 12 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly 13 held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed 14 disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”). In response to this Court’s 15 calendar notice, counsel has provided nine pages describing the facts and proceedings. 16 [MIO 3-11] The fact section in the memorandum in opposition is essentially a 17 verbatim reiteration of the fact section from Defendant’s docketing statement. [See DS 18 3-12] Counsel has not pointed out whether any of the facts asserted are contrary to 19 those relied on by this Court in our notice of proposed disposition and, in fact, noted 2 1 in a footnote that the facts were obtained from the docketing statement except where 2 specifically noted, with no specific notation indicating that any of the facts were 3 indeed taken from elsewhere. [See MIO 3 n.3] Although we appreciate the footnote, 4 this repetition of material that has already been presented to the Court, with no 5 indication as to which parts, if any, contradict the facts relied upon by the district 6 court or this Court or which parts, if any, are responsive to the notice of proposed 7 disposition, is not useful and creates unnecessary work for both this Court and the 8 parties. We request that counsel refrain from this practice in any future pleadings she 9 may file with this Court. 10 {3} In her memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to assert the same 11 arguments that she raised in her docketing statement: (A) that Defendant was entitled 12 to a jury trial because a DWI offense is a serious offense, and (B) that there was 13 insufficient evidence to convict Defendant in light of the complications presented by 14 Defendant’s hypoglycemia, her recent use of her inhaler, and the tenderness of her 15 ankle. [MIO 12-14] Defendant has not raised any issues or arguments that were not 16 addressed in our notice of proposed disposition and the district court’s memorandum 17 opinion that we proposed to adopt; we therefore refer Defendant to our notice of 18 proposed disposition and to the district court’s memorandum opinion, which we now 19 adopt. [See CN 2-4; RP 195] See Hennessy, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24 (“Our courts have 3 1 repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing 2 the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”); State v. 3 Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a 4 party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically 5 point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill 6 this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 7 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. 8 {4} Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed disposition and 9 herein, and for the reasons articulated in the memorandum opinion of the district 10 court, we affirm Defendant’s convictions. 11 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 ________________________________ JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 14 WE CONCUR: 15 ________________________________ 16 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 17 ________________________________ 18 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 4
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.
