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Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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, v. NO. 34,317 ROCCO TINOCO, 6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LUNA COUNTY Jennifer E. DeLaney, District Judge

9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Rocco Tinoco Deming, NM Pro Se Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION WECHSLER, Judge.

1 {1} Defendant, in a self-represented capacity, appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his appeal from his magistrate court guilty plea convictions for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer and battery upon a household member. [RP 38, 76] This Court issued a notice proposing to affirm the district court’s dismissal of Defendant’s appeal on the grounds that Defendant’s unconditional guilty plea waived his right to appeal. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm.

8 {2} In this Court’s notice, we noted that “a voluntary guilty plea ordinarily constitutes a waiver of the defendant’s right to appeal his conviction on other than jurisdictional grounds.” State v. Chavarria, 2009-NMSC-020, ¶ 9, 146 N.M. 251, 208 11 P.3d 896 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). [CN 2] In his response, Defendant makes numerous factual assertions that appear to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence [MIO 1–5], but he does not assert any fact or law that indicates his guilty plea was conditional and did not waive his right to appeal. Defendant asserts that his conviction must be reversed on jurisdictional grounds [MIO 1], but he does not support this assertion with either law or fact demonstrating a jurisdictional defect.

17 We therefore conclude that Defendant has failed to point out any actual errors in fact or in law with this Court’s notice. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary

1 calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”).

3 {3} For the reasons stated above and in this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we affirm Defendant’s conviction.

5 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 ________________________________ 7 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

8 WE CONCUR:

9 ________________________________ JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

11 ________________________________ CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge