State v. Johnson

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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. A-1-CA-36541 5 ROBERT E. JOHNSON, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 8 Fernando R. Macias, District Judge 9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 13 Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Public Defender 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 VANZI, Chief Judge. 18 {1} Defendant Robert E. Johnson appeals his convictions for two counts of 19 possession of a controlled substance and one count of possession of marijuana, all 1 contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-31-23(A) (2011), [RP 89-92] pursuant to a 2 conditional plea [RP 81-87] that reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion 3 to suppress [RP 82]. In response to Defendant’s docketing statement, we proposed to 4 affirm. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition (MIO). After due 5 consideration, we are unpersuaded and therefore affirm. 6 {2} Defendant has not persuaded us in his MIO that there was an error of law or fact 7 in our proposed disposition. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of 8 proposed summary disposition and above, we affirm. See Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. 9 & Fabricating, Inc., 1990-NMSC-100, ¶ 8, 111 N.M. 6, 800 P.2d 1063 (stating that 10 our appellate courts presume that the trial court is correct and, accordingly, the burden 11 is on the appellant to clearly demonstrate that the trial court erred); Hennessy v. 12 Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“[I]n summary 13 calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly 14 point out errors in fact or law.”). 15 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 __________________________________ LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 18 WE CONCUR: 19 _________________________________ 20 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 2 1 _________________________________ 2 JULIE J. VARGAS, 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.