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 Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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-40863 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOANN GONZALES, Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF GRANT COUNTY Jarod K. Hofacket, 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 MEDINA, Judge. {1} Defendant appeals the district court’s order revoking Defendant’s 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 the memorandum in opposition, Defendant maintains that the district court improperly revoked Defendant’s probation, specifically because there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Defendant violated all of the probation conditions alleged in the State’s petition to revoke. [MIO 8] In our proposed calendar notice, we proposed to conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the district court’s decision to revoke Defendant’s probation in this case. Defendant’s memorandum is not responsive to that conclusion regarding the sufficiency of evidence concerning Defendant’s violation of standard condition 2. See State v. Leon, 2013-NMCA-011, ¶ 37, 292 P.3d 493 (“[I]f there is sufficient evidence to support just one violation, we will find the district court’s order was proper.”). {3} As to Defendant’s assertion that the district court abused its discretion by denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on violations of Rule 5-805 NMRA, Defendant’s memorandum in opposition appears to reiterate the same points made in the docketing statement without addressing or responding to the analysis contained in this Court’s notice of proposed disposition. We therefore refer Defendant to our analysis therein. {4} Defendant has failed to assert any new facts, law, or argument that persuade this Court 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. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we affirm. {5} IT IS SO ORDERED.

JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge WE CONCUR: J. MILES HANISEE, Judge ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge