New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2023

State v. Craft

State v. Craft
New Mexico Court of Appeals · Decided February 6, 2023 · J. MILES HANISEE; JENNIFER L. ATTREP; JANE B. YOHALEM

State v. Craft

Opinion

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 Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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-40592 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANK EDWARD CRAFT, Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY James M. Hudson, District Court Judge Raúl Torrez, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM for Appellant MEMORANDUM OPINION HANISEE, Judge. {1} Defendant appeals the district court’s order revoking his probation. 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} In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant maintains that there is insufficient evidence to revoke his probation. [MIO 4] Defendant has failed, however, to assert any new facts, law, or argument that persuade this Court that our notice of proposed disposition was erroneous. See 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.”); 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point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. We therefore refer Defendant to our analysis therein. {3} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we affirm the revocation of Defendant’s probation. {4} IT IS SO ORDERED.

J. MILES HANISEE, Judge WE CONCUR: JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Chief Judge JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge

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