Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,502 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
Serna v. Gutierrez - cited by 20 documents
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Williams - cited by 76 documents
Decision Content
This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
No. A-1-CA-38092
RAUL A. CANO C.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JUDY CHAVEZ,
Defendant-Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Valerie A. Huling, District Judge
Raul A. Cano C.
Albuquerque, NM
Pro Se Appellant
Ron Sanchez
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
, Judge.
{1} Plaintiff has appealed from a defense judgment. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm. Plaintiff has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded.
{2} The pertinent background information and applicable principles have previously been set forth. We will avoid undue reiteration here, and instead focus on the content of the memorandum in opposition.
{3} We understand Plaintiff to continue to argue that he was entitled to judgment in his favor, based upon the evidence that he presented below. [MIO 1] However, Defendant presented conflicting evidence which the trial court deemed to be more credible and compelling. [RP 54-56] As we previously explained, [CN 1-2] although Plaintiff clearly disagrees with the trial court’s assessment, we cannot “re-weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for the trier of fact on appeal.” Serna v. Gutierrez, 2013-NMCA-026, ¶ 29, 297 P.3d 1238; see also In re R.W., 1989-NMCA-008, ¶ 7, 108 N.M. 332, 772 P.2d 366 (“We defer to the trial court, not because it is convenient, but because the trial court is in a better position than we are to make findings of fact and also because that is one of the responsibilities given to trial courts rather than appellate courts.”).
{4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary disposition and above, we affirm.
{5} IT IS SO ORDERED.
JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge
WE CONCUR:
JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge
MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge