1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
3 Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 v. NO. 28,329
5 ARNULFO PRIMERO,
6 Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY
8 Mike Murphy, District Judge
9 Gary K. King, Attorney General
10 Santa Fe, NM
11 Jacqueline R. Medina, Assistant Attorney General
12 Albuquerque, NM
13 for Appellee
14 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender
15 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender
16 Santa Fe, NM
17 for Appellant.
18 MEMORANDUM OPINION
19 FRY, Chief Judge.
20 Defendant appeals from his conviction for driving under the influence, in
21 violation of NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102(C) (2008). This Court originally issued
22 a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition,
1 contending, based on the information contained in the docketing statement, that an
2 hour-and-a-half delay existed between the time he was stopped and the time he was
3 administered his breath test [Defendant’s MIO 2-3], and contending that he was not
4 read his rights pursuant to the New Mexico Implied Consent Act [Defendant’s MIO
5 9-10]. Based on this information, this Court issued a second calendar notice
6 proposing to reverse. The State then filed a memorandum in opposition indicating,
7 based on viewing the video of the stop, that there was only a half-hour delay between
8 the time Defendant was stopped [State’s MIO 9]and when he was administered his
9 breath test, and that Defendant was informed of his rights under the New Mexico
10 Implied Consent Act [State’s MIO 8]. As a result, this Court issued a third calendar
11 notice proposing summary affirmance. Defendant has filed a memorandum in
12 response, informing the Court that he is not submitting any argument in response to
13 our third calendar notice and is, instead, relying on the facts and arguments contained
14 in his original memorandum. “A party opposing summary disposition is required to
15 come forward and specifically point out errors in fact and/or law.” State v. Ibarra,
16 116 N.M. 486, 489, 864 P.2d 302, 305 (Ct. App. 1993); State v. Sisneros, 98 N.M.
17 201, 202-03, 647 P.2d 403, 404-05 (1982) (“The opposing party to summary
18 disposition must come forward and specifically point out errors in fact and in law.”).
2
1 Because Defendant has failed to point out any factual or legal errors in this Court’s
2 third calendar notice, we rely on the reasoning contained in our first and third calendar
3 notices and hereby affirm.
4 For the reasons stated herein and in this Court’s first and third calendar notices,
5 we affirm Defendant’s conviction.
6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge
9 WE CONCUR:
10
11 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
12
13 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
3