State v. Sanchez
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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-36790 5 JOSE EDDIE SANCHEZ, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 8 Douglas R. Driggers, District Judge 9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 13 Aja Oishi, Assistant Appellate Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 VANZI, Chief Judge. 18 {1} Defendant Jose Eddie Sanchez appeals from his conviction, after a jury trial, of 19 aggravated battery (great bodily harm), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-3-5(C) 1 (1969). Although Defendant was also convicted of robbery and harassment, he only 2 disputes the “great bodily harm” aspect of the aggravated battery conviction on 3 appeal. In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to summarily 4 affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition (MIO), which we have duly 5 considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm. 6 {2} Defendant continues to argue that the district court should have dismissed the 7 aggravated battery conviction because, although the State introduced sufficient 8 evidence to support a battery conviction, there was insufficient evidence of great 9 bodily harm. However, Defendant has not presented any new facts, authority, or 10 argument that persuade this Court that our notice of proposed disposition was 11 incorrect. [See MIO 2-14] Indeed, notwithstanding his insistence that Victim’s being 12 airlifted to another hospital and spending a week in the intensive care unit does not 13 necessarily mean that his injuries were such that there was a high probability of death 14 or permanent or prolonged impairment of the use of any member or organ of the body, 15 and his contention that the jury could have found that the injury was merely a painful, 16 temporary disfigurement, we reiterate and conclude that the evidence presented was 17 sufficient to support the jury’s findings and verdict. [See CN 1-7; MIO 7-14; see 18 also MIO 2-5] See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 19 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the 2 1 burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in 2 fact or law.”); State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 3 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice “must come 4 forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact,” and the repetition of earlier 5 arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds 6 as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. 7 {3} Moreover, we reiterate that the jury was free to reject Defendant’s version of 8 the facts, it was for the jury to resolve any conflicts and determine weight and 9 credibility in the testimony, and we do not re-weigh the evidence or substitute our 10 judgment for that of the jury, as long as there is sufficient evidence to support the 11 verdict. See State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829; State 12 v. Salas, 1999-NMCA-099, ¶ 13, 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 482; State v. Griffin, 13 1993-NMSC-071, ¶ 17, 116 N.M. 689, 866 P.2d 1156. 14 {4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and 15 herein, we affirm Defendant’s conviction. 16 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 _______________________________ LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 19 WE CONCUR: 20 ___________________________ 3 1 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 2 ___________________________ 3 DANIEL J. GALLEGOS, 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.
