State v. Tinoco

This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate 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Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum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.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
3 Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 v. NO. 34,317
5 ROCCO TINOCO,
6 Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LUNA COUNTY
8 Jennifer E. DeLaney, District Judge
9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
10 Santa Fe, NM
11 for Appellee
12 Rocco Tinoco
13 Deming, NM
14 Pro Se Appellant
15 MEMORANDUM OPINION
16 WECHSLER, Judge.
1 {1} Defendant, in a self-represented capacity, appeals from the district court’s order
2 dismissing his appeal from his magistrate court guilty plea convictions for resisting,
3 evading, or obstructing an officer and battery upon a household member. [RP 38, 76]
4 This Court issued a notice proposing to affirm the district court’s dismissal of
5 Defendant’s appeal on the grounds that Defendant’s unconditional guilty plea waived
6 his right to appeal. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have
7 duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm.
8 {2} In this Court’s notice, we noted that “a voluntary guilty plea ordinarily
9 constitutes a waiver of the defendant’s right to appeal his conviction on other than
10 jurisdictional grounds.” State v. Chavarria, 2009-NMSC-020, ¶ 9, 146 N.M. 251, 208
11 P.3d 896 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). [CN 2] In his response,
12 Defendant makes numerous factual assertions that appear to challenge the sufficiency
13 of the evidence [MIO 1–5], but he does not assert any fact or law that indicates his
14 guilty plea was conditional and did not waive his right to appeal. Defendant asserts
15 that his conviction must be reversed on jurisdictional grounds [MIO 1], but he does
16 not support this assertion with either law or fact demonstrating a jurisdictional defect.
17 We therefore conclude that Defendant has failed to point out any actual errors in fact
18 or in law with this Court’s notice. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24,
19 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary
2
1 calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly
2 point out errors in fact or law.”).
3 {3} For the reasons stated above and in this Court’s notice of proposed disposition,
4 we affirm Defendant’s conviction.
5 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED.
6 ________________________________
7 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
8 WE CONCUR:
9 ________________________________
10 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
11 ________________________________
12 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge
3