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Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum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. 36,105
5 ISHMEL NORMAN,
6 Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
8 Cristina T. Jaramillo, District Judge
9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
10 Santa Fe, NM
11 for Appellee
12 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
13 Santa Fe, NM
14 Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender
15 Albuquerque, NM
16 for Appellant
17 MEMORANDUM OPINION
18 ZAMORA, Judge.
1 {1} Defendant Ishmel Norman appeals from the district court’s affirmance of his
2 convictions after a jury trial in the metropolitan court for aggravated driving while
3 under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DWI) (third offense), and failure to obey
4 a traffic signal. [DS 1; RP 49, 113, 121, 123] In this Court’s notice of proposed
5 disposition, we proposed to adopt the district court’s memorandum opinion affirming
6 the conviction. [CN 2] Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have
7 duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm Defendant’s conviction.
8 {2} Defendant raises no new arguments apart from those that he made in his
9 docketing statement [DS 7-8] and in the statement of the issues he filed with the
10 district court in his on-record appeal [RP 91, 95-99, 116]. [See generally MIO] In this
11 Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to adopt the district court’s
12 thorough and well-reasoned memorandum opinion in response to Defendant’s
13 arguments. [CN 2; see also RP 113-20] Defendant has failed to raise any new
14 arguments or issues to convince us to reconsider our proposed adoption of the district
15 court’s memorandum opinion. As such, all of the arguments in Defendant’s
16 memorandum in opposition have been addressed by this Court in its notice of
17 proposed disposition and by the district court’s memorandum opinion this Court
18 proposed to adopt, and we refer Defendant to the responses therein. [See RP 113-20]
2
1 {3} Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed disposition and
2 herein, and for the reasons articulated in the memorandum opinion of the district
3 court, we affirm.
4 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
7 WE CONCUR:
8
9 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
10
11 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge
3