Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,517 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
State v. Sanchez - cited by 80 documents
Decision Content
STATE V. OLGUIN
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
THEODORE O. OLGUIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 31,659
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
February 2, 2012
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY, Richard
Brown, District Judge
COUNSEL
Gary K. King, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
Jacqueline Cooper, Chief Public Defender, J. K. Theodosia Johnson, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant
JUDGES
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge. WE CONCUR: CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
AUTHOR:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BUSTAMANTE, Judge.
Defendant appeals from an order revoking his probation and imposing judgment and sentence. We proposed to affirm in a notice of proposed summary disposition. Defendant has filed a timely memorandum in opposition. After reviewing Defendant’s memorandum in opposition, we remain unpersuaded and thus affirm the order revoking his probation and imposing judgment and sentence.
In his docketing statement, Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the district court’s finding that he violated the terms of his probation. See State v. Sanchez, 2001-NMCA-060, ¶ 11, 130 N.M. 602, 28 P.3d 1143 (stating that, in a probation revocation proceeding, the State bears the burden of establishing a violation with reasonable certainty). In our notice, we reviewed the evidence introduced at the probation revocation hearing and proposed to affirm. In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant has failed to challenge our review of the evidence presented or the analysis contained in our proposed disposition. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm the district court’s order revoking Defendant’s probation and imposing judgment and sentence.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
WE CONCUR:
CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge