State v. Chavez

1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 4 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 5 not include the filing date. 6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 7 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 8 Plaintiff-Appellee, 9 v. NO. 30,997 10 EULALIO CHÁVEZ, 11 Defendant-Appellant. 12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 13 Stephen Bridgforth, District Judge 14 Gary King, Attorney General 15 Santa Fe, NM 16 for Appellee 17 Jacqueline L. Cooper, Acting Chief Public Defender 18 Karl Erich Martell, Assistant Appellate Defender 19 Santa Fe, NM 20 for Appellant 21 MEMORANDUM OPINION 22 VIGIL, Judge. 1 Defendant appeals his convictions for criminal sexual contact of a minor and 2 battery. In this Court’s notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to 3 affirm. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly 4 considered. As we are not persuaded by Defendant’s arguments, we affirm. 5 In this Court’s notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to 6 conclude that the victims’ testimony that Defendant touched them in the manner 7 charged was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions. Although Defendant 8 argued, pursuant to State v. Franklin, 78 N.M. 127, 129, 428 P.2d 982, 984 (1967), 9 and State v. Boyer, 103 N.M. 655, 658-60, 712 P.2d 1, 4-6 (Ct. App. 1985), that the 10 victims’ testimony was not credible, we pointed out that this Court does not assess the 11 credibility of witnesses, State v. Salas, 1999-NMCA-099, ¶ 13, 127 N.M. 686, 986 12 P.2d 482, and that we are required to view the evidence, and all reasonable inferences 13 to be drawn from the evidence, in the light most favorable to the verdict, see State v. 14 Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 26, 128 N.M. 711, 998 P.2d 176. 15 Defendant has responded with a memorandum in opposition, in which, again 16 pursuant to Franklin and Boyer, he points to evidence introduced at trial that would 17 call the victims’ credibility into question and that would support his version of events. 18 Defendant has provided no new facts, authority, or legal analysis that would persuade 19 this Court that its proposed summary disposition was erroneous. Therefore, for the 2 1 reasons stated in this opinion and in our notice of proposed summary disposition, we 2 affirm. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 _______________________________ 5 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 6 WE CONCUR: 7 _________________________________ 8 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge 9 _________________________________ 10 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 3