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Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NO. A-1-CA-36580 MARIO MATA ACOSTA, 6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY Gary L. Clingman, District Judge Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Nina Lalevic, Assistant Public Defender Santa Fe, NM for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION VIGIL, Judge.

18 {1} Defendant Mario Mata Acosta appeals from his conviction, after a jury trial, of the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16D- 1(A)(1) (2009). In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to summarily affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition (MIO), which we have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm.

4 {2} Defendant continues to argue that his statement should have been suppressed as it was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. [MIO 2] However, Defendant has not asserted any new facts or presented any authority or arguments to persuade this Court that our notice of proposed disposition was erroneous. [See MIO 2-5; see also MIO 4 n.1] See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 9 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”); State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 12 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. We therefore refer Defendant to our analysis in our notice of proposed disposition.

17 {3} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we affirm Defendant’s conviction.

19 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 ____________________________________ 2 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge

3 WE CONCUR:

4 ___________________________ EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge

6 ___________________________ DANIEL J. GALLEGOS, Judge