Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses - cited by 5,744 documents
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,472 documents
Decision Content
STATE V. LOERA
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JESUS MANUEL LOERA,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 32,431
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
December 18, 2012
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY,
Jacinto Palomino, District Judge
COUNSEL
Gary K. King, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
Jacqueline L. Cooper, Chief Public Defender
Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM for Appellant
JUDGES
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge. WE CONCUR: CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
SUTIN, Judge.
Defendant appeals his convictions for first degree kidnapping, aggravated battery (great bodily harm), aggravated escape or attempt to escape from custody of the Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD), and conspiracy to commit aggravated escape or attempt to escape from custody of CYFD. [MIO 1; RP 93] This Court issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to affirm, and Defendant has filed a timely memorandum in opposition. After considering the arguments made in Defendant’s memorandum in opposition, we are not persuaded that our proposed disposition is in error. Therefore, we affirm Defendant’s convictions.
In our notice, we observed that Defendant had pleaded guilty to all of the crimes except first degree kidnapping. See NMSA 1978, § 30-4-1 (2003). We then reviewed the evidence in support of that conviction and proposed to affirm.
In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant confines his argument to the first degree kidnapping conviction. [MIO 3] He summarizes the evidence discussed in our notice of proposed summary disposition [MIO 1-2], but fails to rebut or dispute any of the analysis contained in that notice.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed in our notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm Defendant’s convictions and sentence.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
WE CONCUR:
CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge
RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge