New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2018

State v. Baca

State v. Baca
New Mexico Court of Appeals · Decided October 18, 2018

State v. Baca

Opinion

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Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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-36262 ANTHONY BACA, 6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY Fred T. Van Soelen, District Judge Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Caitlin C.M. Smith, Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION HANISEE, Judge.

18 {1} Defendant Anthony Baca appeals from his conviction of aggravated assault.

19 This Court issued a notice of proposed disposition, proposing to summarily affirm, and a second notice of proposed disposition, proposing to summarily affirm, in part, and reverse, in part. Defendant filed a memorandum in support of summary reversal and opposition to summary affirmance (DMIO), stating that he “relies upon the facts and arguments contained in his initial memorandum in opposition to proposed summary affirmance,” and supports our proposed reversal in part. [DMIO 1] The State also filed a response to our proposed disposition (SMIO), by which it “informs the Court that after due consideration it will not be filing a memorandum in opposition.”

8 [SMIO 1] Accordingly, and for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition, as remain applicable, and our second notice of proposed disposition, we affirm Defendant’s conviction of aggravated assault, but reverse the district court’s designation of the conviction as a serious violent offense.

12 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 _____________________________________ 14 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge WE CONCUR:

16 ____________________________ JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge

18 ____________________________

1 DANIEL J. GALLEGOS, Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.