State v. Velazquez

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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, 4 v. NO. 35,747 5 CARLOS VELAZQUEZ, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 8 Fernando R. Macias, District Judge 9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 Elizabeth Ashton, Assistant Attorney General 12 Albuquerque, NM 13 for Appellee 14 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 15 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender 16 Santa Fe, NM 17 for Appellant 18 MEMORANDUM OPINION 19 VANZI, Chief Judge. 20 {1} Carlos Velazquez (Defendant) appeals from his conviction for criminal damage 1 to the property of a household member under $1000. On appeal, Defendant argues that 2 the district court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict. This Court issued 3 a notice of proposed disposition, proposing to affirm Defendant’s conviction. 4 Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition in response to this Court’s proposed 5 affirmance. This Court then issued a second notice of proposed disposition, proposing 6 to reverse. Specifically, we noted that it appeared Defendant was charged with 7 criminal damage to the property of a household member, pursuant to NMSA 1978, 8 Section 30-3-18 (2009), but no evidence establishing that the property belonged to a 9 household member was introduced and no instruction requiring the jury to determine 10 whether the property belonged to a household member was given. In response the 11 State has filed a notice of its intent not to file a memorandum in opposition to our 12 second notice of proposed disposition. 13 {2} Accordingly, we rely on the reasoning contained in our second notice of 14 proposed disposition and reverse Defendant’s conviction. 15 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 __________________________________ 17 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 18 WE CONCUR: 19 _________________________________ 20 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 2 1 _________________________________ 2 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge 3