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 the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, contrary to a specific statute. The events leading to this conviction are not detailed in the provided text.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Lea County, Gary L. Clingman, District Judge, September 17, 2018: Conviction of the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that his statement should have been suppressed as it was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (para 2).
• Appellee: The specific arguments of the Appellee are not detailed in the provided text, but it can be inferred that the Appellee argued for the affirmation of the conviction based on the procedural history and the court's decision.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's statement should have been suppressed on the grounds that it was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (Emil J. Kiehne, J., and Daniel J. Gallegos, J., concurring): The court was not persuaded by the Defendant's memorandum in opposition to the notice of proposed disposition, which argued for the suppression of his statement. The Defendant did not present new facts, authority, or arguments that could lead the court to reconsider its proposed disposition. The court referred to its analysis in the notice of proposed disposition for its reasoning, emphasizing the Defendant's failure to meet the burden of clearly pointing out errors in fact or law in response to a summary calendar notice (paras 1-3).