AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted of larceny (under $250) in the District Court of Bernalillo County.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Briana H. Zamora, District Judge: Defendant was convicted of larceny (under $250).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction for larceny (under $250).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued in favor of affirming the Defendant's conviction, although specific arguments are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for larceny (under $250).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for larceny (under $250).

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with Jacqueline R. Medina and Megan P. Duffy, Judges, concurring: The Court decided to affirm the Defendant's conviction after considering her appeal and the memorandum in opposition she submitted. The Defendant's challenge was based on the sufficiency of the evidence. However, her memorandum did not identify any factual or legal errors in the Court's initial proposal to affirm the conviction. The Court referenced State v. Mondragon, which requires a party responding to a summary calendar notice to specifically point out errors of law and fact. The repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement. Since the Defendant did not meet this standard, the Court affirmed her conviction (paras 1-2).