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 Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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-39937 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FERNANDO MOLINA, Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY Douglas R. Driggers, District Judge Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Charles D. Agoos, Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM for Appellant MEMORANDUM OPINION ATTREP, Judge. {1} Defendant appeals his conviction for battery on a household member following a jury trial. In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to summarily affirm.

Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered.

Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm. {2} Defendant’s memorandum in opposition continues to reassert the same issues that we have already addressed and proposed to reject in our notice of proposed disposition. However, Defendant’s memorandum in opposition has not asserted any fact, law, or argument that persuades us that our notice of proposed disposition was erroneous. 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point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374; see also Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 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.”). {3} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we affirm. {4} IT IS SO ORDERED.

JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge WE CONCUR: KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge