This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer- generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO No. A-1-CA-37919 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHERRY TUCKER, Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Briana H. Zamora, District Judge Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Santa Fe, NM Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender Albuquerque, NM for Appellant MEMORANDUM OPINION HANISEE, Judge. {1} Defendant appeals her conviction for larceny (under $250). We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant has responded with a memorandum in opposition.

We affirm. {2} Defendant’s sole issue on appeal challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction. Her memorandum in opposition does not point out any errors in fact or law in our calendar notice. See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (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point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superceded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374 . Accordingly, we affirm. {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

J. MILES HANISEE, Judge WE CONCUR: JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge