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

• Juan Delgado, the Defendant, was convicted by a jury of two counts of non-residential burglary.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the district court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict as to each of the counts of burglary, maintaining that the evidence was insufficient to prove he committed burglary (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions, as indicated by the court's notice of proposed disposition which the Defendant failed to specifically counter in his memorandum in opposition (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motions for directed verdict on the grounds of insufficient evidence to support the burglary convictions.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury trial convictions of the Defendant for two counts of non-residential burglary (para 1).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with James J. Wechsler and Henry M. Bohnhoff concurring, the court held that the Defendant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. The court noted that the Defendant, in his memorandum in opposition, did not point out any errors of law or fact in the court's notice of proposed disposition and merely repeated earlier arguments. Citing State v. Mondragon, the court emphasized that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must specifically point out errors of law and fact, which the Defendant failed to do. Consequently, the court found no error in the district court's denial of the Defendant's motions for directed verdict and affirmed the convictions (paras 1-2).