This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 31,093 9 WALKER T. SCHOONOVER, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 12 Denise Barela Shepherd, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Jacqueline L. Cooper, Acting Chief Public Defender 17 Tania Shahani, Assistant Appellate Defender 18 Santa Fe, NM 19 for Appellant 20 MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 VANZI, Judge. 222 Defendant appeals his convictions fo r homicide by vehicle and great bodily 1 injury by vehicle. We proposed to affirm in a calendar notice, and we have received 2 a memorandum in opposition to our notice as well as a motion to amend the docketing 3 statement. We have duly considered De fendant’s arguments, but we are unpersuaded 4 by them. We deny the motion to amend the docketing statement, and we affirm 5 Defendant’s convictions. 6 In our calendar notice, we pointed out that trial counsel failed to provide us all 7 of the facts as required by Rule 12-208 NM RA. In the memo in opposition, appellate 8 counsel repeatedly stat es that trial counsel cannot recall certain facts relevant to the 9 issues on appeal. [MIO 3-4] For exampl e, on the issue of the qualification of the 10 police officer, trial counsel cannot recall what testimony the officer gave as to his 11 qualifications, cannot recall what the State argued about prejudice, and cannot recall 12 the discussion in the district court. [MIO 6] With regard to the rebuttal witness, trial 13 counsel cannot recall the testimony of the witness. Based on trial counsel’s faulty 14 memory, appellate counsel argues that th e case must be assigned to a different 15 calendar, and appellate couns el should be given access to the trial record. [MIO 7] 16 Rule 12-208(A) NMRA states that trial counsel shall be responsible for 17 preparing and filing the docketing statement unless relieved of that responsibility by 18 the appellate court. Rule 12-208 explains in detail all of the information that must be 193 included in the docketing statement, including “a concise, accurate statement of the 1 case summarizing all facts materi al to a consideration of th e issues presented.” Rule 2 12-208(D)(3). As explained in Loverin v. Debusk, 114 N.M. 1, 1, 833 P.2d 1182, 3 1182 (Ct. App. 1992), Rule 12- 208 was adopted by our Suprem e Court, and this Court 4 is required to follow the rule. The Court in Loverin went on to explain that we use the 5 docketing statement in our calendaring system, and therefore, it is important that the 6 docketing statement is in compliance with the rule. Id. The responsibility for 7 preparing a docketing statement in compliance with the rule falls on trial counsel 8 because trial counsel was present during the proceedings and knows first-hand what 9 evidence or testimony was presented, what objections were made, how issues were 10 preserved, what arguments were made to th e district court, and the details of the 11 rulings made by the district court. All of this information is important to this Court 12 when considering the issues raised by an appellant. 13 Appellate counsel suggests that, because trial counsel did not comply with the 14 appellate rules with regard to the docketing statement and because trial counsel claims 15 a loss of memory with regard to important details, we should assign this case to 16 another calendar to allow a ppellate counsel to address the deficiencies in the 17 docketing statement. To do so would be c ontrary to our commitment to the principle 18 that issues raised by the appellate attorn ey after picking through the transcript are 194 disfavored. See Id. at 1-2, 833 P.2d at 1182-83. Moreover, if we believe the facts that 1 are contained in the docketing statement or contained in the record are sufficient to 2 enable us to resolve the issues raised on appeal, we will assign the case to the 3 summary calendar as we did in this case. See Udall v. Townsend, 1998-NMCA-162, 4 ¶ 3, 126 N.M. 251, 968 P.2d 341. We have dete rmined that we candecide this case 5 on the summary calendar. We now proceedto address the arguments in opposition 6 to our proposal and Defendant’s motion to amend the docketing statement. 7 Motion to Amend Docketing Statement 8 Defendant moves to amend the docketing statement to include two issues. 9 Defendant claims that it was error for the di strict court to grant the State’s motion in 10 limine to exclude information regarding a civil settlement, and Defendant claims that 11 he was denied effective couns el based on trial counsel’s failure to attend the pretrial 12 interview of Deputy Armijo and failure to obtain an expert to support Defendant’s 13 theory of the case. We will deny a motion to amend the docketing statement when the 14 argument offered in support of the motion is not viable. State v. Sommer , 118 N.M. 15 58, 60, 878 P.2d 1007, 1009 (Ct. App. 1994). 16 Defendant claims that he was prevented from introducing evidence that Tommy 17 Gurule’s insurer had paid money pursuant to a civil lawsuit to the estate of the 18 deceased motorist as compensation for Gurule ’s involvement in the crash. Defendant 195 wished to use the evidence to show that he was not solely responsible for the crash. 1 “We review the admission of evidence under anabuse of discretion standard and will 2 not reverse in the absence of a clear abuse.” See State v. Sarracino , 1998-NMSC-022, 3 ¶ 20, 125 N.M. 511, 964 P.2d 72. As argued by the State, the civil lawsuit involved 4 a different burden of proof and different considerations and financial concerns than 5 the criminal case against Defendant. [RP 84] The State argued that admission of 6 evidence concerning the civil lawsuit would be confusing to jurors in the criminal 7 case, the jurors could be influenced to draw incorrect conclusions without 8 understanding the differences between the tw o types of cases, and admission of the 9 evidence would be unduly prejudicial. [Id.] Defendant has not demonstrated an abuse 10 of discretion by the district court in excluding the evidence. 11 Defendant claims that his counsel failed to call an expert witness to respond to 12 the State’s expert witness and failed to attend the interview of the witness called by 13 the State as an expert. There is a two fo ld test for proving ineffective assistance of 14 counsel; the defendant must s how (1) that counsel’s performance fell below that of a 15 reasonably competent attorney, and (2) that defendant was prejudiced by the deficient 16 performance. State v. Hester , 1999-NMSC-020, ¶ 9, 127 N.M. 218, 979 P.2d 729. 17 The burden of proof is on defendant to prove both prongs. Id. 186 Defendant suggests that trial counsel di d not call an expert “due to the late 1 disclosure” of the State’s witness as an expert and due to the “dis trict court’s refusal 2 to exclude” the testimony of the State’s expe rt. [MIO 18] Defendant also suggests 3 that trial counsel’s actions were not for strategic reasons. The suggestions made by 4 Defendant are not part of the record in this case. In addition, although Defendant 5 refers to a portion of the record and claims that it provides support for his theory of 6 the case, we disagree with Defendant’s cl aim. The document cited to by Defendant 7 is a response to the State’s motion in limine, and it refers to “assertions” made by 8 Defendant that were not contested by the St ate in its motion in limine. [RP 142] We 9 do not view the statements in Defendant ’s response to be support for Defendant’s 10 theory of the case. However, as noted by Defendant, “[w]hen an ineffective assistance 11 claim is first raised on direct appeal, we evaluate the facts that are part of the record. 12 If facts necessary to a full determination are not part of the record, an ineffective 13 assistance claim is more properly brought through a habeas corpus petition.” State v. 14 Roybal , 2002-NMSC-027, ¶ 19, 132 N.M. 657, 54 P.3d 61 (citing State v. Swavola , 15 114 N.M. 472, 475, 840 P.2d 1238, 1241 (Ct. App. 1992)). Although Defendant has 16 not presented a prima facie claim for ineff ective assistance of counsel, he may choose 17 to pursue his claim through habeas corpus proceedings. 187 Because Defendant’s arguments are not viable, we deny the motion to amend 1 the docketing statement. 2 Issues on Appeal 3 Defendant continues to claim that Deputy Armijo was not qualified as an expert 4 witness. As explained in our calendar notice, Defendant does not provide us with 5 information to support his claim that the deputy was not qualified in accident 6 reconstruction. As pointed out by De fendant in the memorandum in opposition, 7 Deputy Armijo stated in an interview c onducted in November 2009 that he attended 8 training in crash investigation and accident reconstruction and obtained certificates. 9 [RP 224] Deputy Armijo also discussed his years of experience and the number of 10 accidents that he had investigated. [RP 225] In addition, the interview with Deputy 11 Armijo took place approximately one year before trial, and the deputy relied on 12 information from another officer when o ffering his opinion. Therefore, Defendant 13 was aware that the State could decide to rely on Deputy Armijo as an expert at trial. 14 We hold that there was no abuse of discretion by the district court when it allowed 15 expert testimony to be given by Deputy Armijo. 16 Defendant claims that the State should not have been allowed to call Elizabeth 17 Mendez as a rebuttal witness. Defendant claims that the testimony should have been 18 presented in the State’s case in chief, and the State did not reveal Mendez as a witness 198 before calling her to testify. Defendant claims that the State called Mendez in order 1 to gain a tactical advantage. As previ ously discussed, we review the admission of 2 rebuttal testimony for a buse of discretion. State v. Wilson , 2001-NMCA-032, ¶ 39, 3 130 N.M. 319, 24 P.3d 351, abrogated on other grounds by State v. Montoya , 4 2005-NMCA-078, 137 N.M. 713, 114 P.3d 393. As explained in our calendar notice, 5 testimony from Mendez was used to rebut Defendant’s claim that another person 6 caused the accident, and her testimony would not have been admissible in the State’s 7 case as directly bearing on Defendant’s guilt. See Wilson , 2001-NMCA-032, ¶¶ 40- 8 41. The district court did not abuse its discretion. 9 Defendant again claims that statements made during the State’s rebuttal closing 10 argument shifted the burden to Defendant to prove his innocence. We reviewed this 11 argument under the standard for fundamentalerror. Defendant claims that the 12 standard should be abuse of discretion because trial counsel informed appellate 13 counsel that the issue was preserved for appeal. [MIO 10] Even when an issue of 14 prosecutorial misconduct is properly preserved, we must determine whether the 15 prosecutor’s actions had such a persuasive and prejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict 16 that Defendant was deprived of a fair trial. State v. Duffy , 1998-NMSC-014, ¶ 46, 126 17 N.M. 132, 967 P.2d 807, modified on other grounds by State v. Gallegos , 2007- 18 NMSC-007, 141 N.M. 185, 152 P.3d 828. Weapplied a similar standard when 199 addressing this issue in our calendar notice. We hold that Defendant has again failed 1 to show that the statement made by th e prosecutor had such a persuasive and 2 prejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict as to deny him a fair trial. We hold that the 3 district court did not abuse its discretion. 4 For the reasons discussed in this opinion and in our calendar notice, we affirm. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

__________________________________ 7 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 8 WE CONCUR: 9

_________________________________ 10 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 11

_________________________________ 12 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 13