green
Positive treatment
Issue: refusal to take testNM ↗
Issue: calendar notice errorNM ↗
Issue: version ruleNM ↗
Issue: burden of establishing claimNM ↗
46.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 37 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. J Villegas
State v. Salenas, 112 N.M. 268 , 12 269, 814 P.2d 136, 137 (Ct. App. 1991). 13 For the reasons stated herein, we affirm Defendant’s convictions. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 5 1 WE CONCUR: 2 3 MICHAEL E.
discussed
Cited "see"
Zepeda v. Pinnick
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 208 , 814 P.2d 136 (explaining that where a party has not responded to this Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Estate of Marquez
(2×)
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 268 , 814 P.2d 136 (explaining that where a party has not responded to this Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wallace v. Freeman
(2×)
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 268 , 814 P.2d 136 (explaining that where a party has not responded to this Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Rieck
(2×)
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 268 , 814 P.2d 136 (stating that where a party has not responded to the appellate court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned). {4} To the extent Defendant responds to our notice of proposed disposition with new arguments, he first contends that “at no time did [Defendant] waive his right to counsel on appeal,” and that he was “forced to proceed pro se.” [MIO 3] We note that in response to this assertion, this Court issued an order for clarification seeking to confirm Defendant’s wishes regarding appo…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Martinez
(2×)
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 268 , 814 P.2d 136 (stating that where a party has not responded to the Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned). {8} For the reasons set forth above, we affirm. {9} IT IS SO ORDERED.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Cazares
(2×)
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 268 , 814 P.2d 136 (stating that where a party has not responded to this Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned). {3} Issue 2: Defendant continues to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress. [MIO 5] Defendant’s motion to suppress stipulated to the following facts for purposes of a ruling on the motion; thus, no testimony was taken. [RP 139] Lieutenant Moises Ruiz (the Lieutenant) observed Defendant’s vehicle cross an intersection at a slow rate of speed. [RP 139] The Lieutenant observed a second…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Clayton
(2×)
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 268 , 814 P.2d 136 (stating that where a party has not responded to this Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned). {3} Instead, Defendant argues for the first time that she received ineffective assistance of counsel because the district court stated that it would grant her motion for a reduction in sentence, but her attorney never prepared the order reflecting this after being instructed to do so by the district court. [MIO 3-6; RP 173-175] As this issue was not raised in Defendant’s docketing statement, …
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Asimwe
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 208 , 814 P.2d 136 (stating that where a party has not responded to this Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned); see also Rule 12-321(A) NMRA (“To preserve an issue for review it must appear that a ruling or decision by the trial court was fairly invoked.”); State v. Leon, 2013-NMCA-011, ¶ 33 , 292 P.3d 493 (“We generally do not consider issues on appeal that are not preserved below.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Devine
(2×)
See State v. Salenas, 1991- NMCA-056, ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 268 , 814 P.2d 136 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Guerrero
(2×)
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 268 , 814 P.2d 136 (stating that where a party has not responded to this Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned). {4} Instead, Defendant now solely argues that “the scope of the detention here went beyond what was reasonably necessary to investigate the single vehicle minor traffic accident.” [MIO 7] However, Defendant does not identify how, after Officers Shrouf and Cordova smelled alcohol coming from Defendant and observed his bloodshot watery eyes, the scope of the traffic investigation could not ha…
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Delagarza
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 208 , 814 P.2d 136 to that proposed disposition.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Karimi
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 208 , 814 P.2d 136 (stating that where a party has not responded to the Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Quintero
(2×)
See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421 , 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that “[a] party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact[,]” and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded on other grounds as stated by State v. Harris, 2013- NMCA-031, 297 P.3d 374 . {5} To the extent Defendant also urges that the remarks were harmful as they came at the end of the trial, shortly before jury deliberations, we note that in the absence of any rebuttal of our analysis of the factors r…
discussed
Cited "see"
Hinojos v. Elephant Butte
(2×)
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 268 , 814 P.2d 136 (stating that where a party has not responded to this Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned). {8} We therefore conclude that Appellant has not demonstrated error by the district court in dismissing Plaintiffs’ case.
discussed
Cited "see"
State Ex Rel. CYFD v. Opal C.
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 208 , 814 P.2d 136 (stating that where a party has not responded to this Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned). {6} Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that our proposed summary disposition was incorrect.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Padilla
(2×)
See State v. Salenas, 1991- NMCA-056, ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 268 , 814 P.2d 136 ; State v. Gonzales, 1991-NMCA-007 , ¶ 10, 111 N.M. 590 , 808 P.2d 40 (clarifying that where an issue is deemed abandoned on the summary calendar, that issue may be briefed if the case is assigned to a non- summary calendar). {3} Defendant therefore abandons all but one issue [MIO 5-6]: whether the district court violated Defendant’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him when the district court allowed a detective to reference a report “alleging that Defendant . . . had embezzled the vehicle in qu…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Mascarenas
See See State v. Salenas, 1991- NMCA-056, ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 208 , 814 P.2d 136 (providing that where a party has not responded to the Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned). {8} For the reasons stated in our notice and in this opinion, we affirm the district court’s order revoking Defendant’s probation. {9} IT IS SO ORDERED.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Abeyta
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 208 , 814 P.2d 136 (stating that where a party has not responded to the Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Gonzales
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 208 , 814 P.2d 136 (stating that where a party has not responded to the Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned). {9} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. {10} IT IS SO ORDERED.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ellsworth
(2×)
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 268 , 814 P.2d 136 (stating that where a party has not responded to this Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned). {4} Here, Defendant was one of three people in a blue sedan that was involved in the underlying incident. [MIO 1-2] A witness in another vehicle identified Defendant as the driver of the blue sedan. [MIO 2] When the blue sedan stopped in the mall parking lot, this same witness described the two other individuals in the vehicle as female. [MIO 3] To the extent that there was some conflicting evi…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Howland
(2×)
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 268 , 814 P.2d 136 . {3} As stated in our notice, we are not persuaded that the State was required to prove that her alcohol consumption necessarily made her incapable of driving safely or that her impairment was primarily caused by intoxication.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Sais
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 208 , 814 P.2d 136 (explaining that where a party has not responded to the Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Barela
(2×)
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 268 , 814 P.2d 136 (recognizing that where a party has not responded to this Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned). {8} We also reject Defendant’s argument that the evidence was insufficient because his statements were not credible because they were made under suspicious and coercive circumstances. [MIO 7] Defendant’s statements to police were submitted to the jury along UJI 14-5040 NMRA, which provides: Evidence has been admitted concerning a statement allegedly made by [the D]efendant.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Pamphille
(2×)
See State v. Salenas, 1991- NMCA-056, ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 268 , 814 P.2d 136 (stating that where a party has not responded to the Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Gutierrez
(2×)
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 268 , 814 P.2d 136 (stating that where a party has not responded to this Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Stapleton
(2×)
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 268 , 814 P.2d 136 (stating that where a party has not responded to the Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Geisik
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 6 N.M. 208 , 814 P.2d 136 (holding where a party has not responded to the Court’s 7 proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ortega
(2×)
See State v. Salenas, 10 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 268 , 814 P.2d 136 (stating that where a party has not 11 responded to the Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed 12 abandoned). 13 {6} For these reasons, and those stated in the calendar notice, we affirm. 14 {7} IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 M.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Munoz
(2×)
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , 8 ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 268 , 814 P.2d 136 (stating that when a party has not responded to the 9 court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned). 10 CONCLUSION 11 {5} For the reasons set forth above, we affirm. 12 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ______________________________ 14 J.
discussed
Cited "see"
Aragon v. Allstate
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 19 268, 814 P.2d 136 (stating that where a party has not responded to this Court’s 20 proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned). 2 1 {3} The pertinent background information was previously set forth in the notice of 2 proposed summary disposition.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Baeza
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 268 , 814 18 P.2d 136 (explaining that where a party has not responded to this Court’s proposed 19 disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Holguin
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 14 268, 814 P.2d 136 (stating that where a party has not responded to the Court’s 15 proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned). 16 {3} Defendant’s response pursues only her challenge to the expansion of the stop 17 into a DWI investigation. [MIO 1-4] Defendant continues to emphasize pretrial 18 testimony that was not admitted into evidence. [MIO 2] The district court pointed out 19 that the pretrial testimony, therefore, was not a matter of record. [RP 9] Defendant 2 1 does not state otherwise.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Otero-Gallegos
(2×)
See State v. Salenas, 1991- 6 NMCA-056, ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 268 , 814 P.2d 136 (observing that where a party has not 7 responded to the Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed 8 abandoned). 9 {3} Issue 2: Defendant continues to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to 10 support her conviction for DWI. [MIO 1] A sufficiency of the evidence review 11 involves a two-step process.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Hinds
(2×)
See State v. Salenas, 10 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 268 , 814 P.2d 136 (explaining that where a party has 11 not responded to the Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that issue is deemed 12 abandoned).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Tarin
See State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056 , ¶ 2, 112 19 N.M. 268 , 814 P.2d 136 (when a party fails to respond to the calendar notice’s 20 proposed disposition of the issues, those issues are deemed abandoned). 2 1 doing so, Defendant directs our attention to his reliance upon State v. Silva, which was 2 quoted in his docketing statement for the following rule: “The test for sufficiency of 3 the evidence is whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature 4 exists to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every 5 element essential to a convi…
cited
Cited "see"
Van Den Brink v. Van Den Brink
See State v. Salenas, 112 19 N.M. 268 , 269, 814 P.2d 136, 137 (Ct. App. 1991). 4 1 Finally, Wife argues that it was appropriate to amend her notice of appeal to 2 include the January order.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of New Mexico
v.
Benito SALENAS
v.
Benito SALENAS
No. 12740.
New Mexico Court of Appeals.
May 7, 1991.
Tom Udall, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee., Robert J. Jacobs, Taos, for defendant-appellant.
Apodaca, Donnelly, Minzner.
Cited by 45 opinions | Published
OPINION
MINZNER, Judge.Defendant appeals his conviction for trafficking heroin. The second calendar notice proposed summary affirmance, and defendant responded with a timely filed memorandum in opposition. We have reviewed defendant’s memorandum in opposition and are not persuaded that the proposed disposition is incorrect. Therefore, for the reasons discussed below, wé affirm defendant’s conviction.
With respect to Issues 1 and 2, defendant has not responded to the proposed disposition of these issues in the second calendar notice. See State v. Martinez, 97 N.M. 585, 642 P.2d 188 (Ct.App.1982). Therefore, these issues are deemed abandoned. Id.
Defendant continues to allege that his due process rights were violated by the use of the confidential informant under a contingency fee agreement. Defendant argues that under these circumstances, the confidential informant becomes a bounty hunter for the state.
The confidential informant in this case worked for the police department under the agreement that the more drug transactions that he helped to complete, the more money he made. Defendant testified that the confidential informant handed him the heroin and asked him to give it to the undercover police officer. In contrast, the confidential informant denied this occurred and testified instead that defendant had the drugs all the time.
We do not agree with defendant that State v. Glosson, 462 So.2d 1082 (Fla.1985), is on point with his case. As noted in the second calendar notice, Glosson involved a contingency fee agreement in which the informant was promised a percentage of all civil forfeitures arising out of successful criminal investigations. The Florida court concluded that the informant had such a “financial stake in criminal convictions” that defendant’s due process rights were violated. See id. at 1085. There is no evidence in this case, however, that the agreement between the informant and the police involved a contingent fee arrangement. The docketing statement indicates only that the informant admitted that “the more transactions which were completed, the more money he made.” Thus, the evidence shows a paid informant, a circumstance which most courts have not found violated due process. See generally Williams v. State, 463 So.2d 1064 (Miss.1985) (sustained a conviction based on evidence provided by an informant, whose fee escalated as type of controlled substance involved escalated in perceived dangerousness, and reviewing case law); cf. Moore v. State, 498 So.2d 612 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986) (distinguishing Glosson).
Furthermore, defendant has failed to point to any error in law or in fact in this court’s rationale that his due process concerns were met by informing the fact finder of the use of the confidential informant, the fee agreement, and allowing the fact finder to place whatever weight and effect it chose on the evidence. See State v. Sisneros, 98 N.M. 201, 647 P.2d 403 (1982) (the party opposing summary disposition must specifically point out errors in fact and law); see also State v. Vialpando, 93 N.M. 289, 599 P.2d 1086 (Ct.App.1979) (it is for the trier of fact to consider the weight and sufficiency of the evidence); Williams v. State; see generally Annotation, Contingent Fee Informant Testimony in State Prosecutions, 57 A.L.R.4th 643 (1987).
Based on the above, we affirm defendant’s conviction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONNELLY and APODACA, JJ., concur.