This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in 

the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the 

citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computergenerated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of 

Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-41118

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOHN ROBERT FISHER,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY

Douglas R. Driggers, District Court Judge

Raúl Torrez, Attorney General

Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender

Santa Fe, NM

Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BOGARDUS, Judge.

{1} Defendant appeals from his convictions for aggravated battery against a 

household member and battery against a household member. In this Court’s notice of 

proposed disposition, we proposed to summarily affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum 

in opposition, which we have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm.

{2} In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant raises the same challenges to the 

sufficiency of the evidence that we addressed in our notice of proposed disposition. 
[MIO 2-3] In particular, Defendant continues to assert that he presented evidence that 

he acted in self-defense. [MIO 2] As we pointed out in our proposed disposition, 

however, evidence supporting acquittal does not provide a basis for reversal because 

the fact-finder is free to reject a defendant’s version of the facts. [CN 4-5] Moreover, the 

jury could have found that Defendant’s actions were excessive and unreasonable under 

the circumstances. [CN 5] See UJI 14-5171 NMRA (providing that self-defense requires 

a finding that a “reasonable person in the same circumstances as the defendant would 

have acted as the defendant did”).

In reasserting the same arguments already addressed, Defendant has failed to assert 

any facts, law, or argument that persuade this Court that our notice of proposed 

disposition was erroneous. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 

754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, 

the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors 

in fact or law.”); 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 by statute on other grounds as stated in 

State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. We therefore conclude that 

Defendant has failed to carry his burden to demonstrate reversible error. See State v. 

Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10, 127 N.M. 393, 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that we presume 

correctness in the district court’s rulings and the burden is on the appellant to 

demonstrate district court error).

{3} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and 

herein, we affirm.

{4} IT IS SO ORDERED.

KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge

WE CONCUR:

SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge

KATHERINE A. WRAY, Judge